Citations

Objective To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in‐person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. Background COVID‐19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe “social distancing” and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra‐indicated in the setting of COVID‐19 infection. Design/Results The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence‐based treatment where possible, but also describe “real world” strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. Conclusions Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in‐person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Abstract Background: Pathogenic variants detected in multi-gene cancer predisposition panels are increasingly used to counsel women regarding their risk for breast cancer. However, the clinical implications of moderate penetrance genes (e.g. CHEK2, ATM) remain unclear. Breast MRI is indicated for women with a lifetime risk of breast cancer of >20%, and polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on common variants discovered in recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) may identify women with pathogenic variants in CHEK2 and ATM who are above or below this level of risk. PRS may also stratify carriers with substantially elevated lifetime risks of breast cancer. Previous work found that PRS modified breast cancer risk in carriers of pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, but the joint effects of pathogenic variants and PRS have not been studied in samples drawn from the general population. There is also no published study evaluating the effect of PRS among women with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 and CHEK2. Here, we evaluated the joint effects of PRS and pathogenic variants in ten established breast cancer predisposition genes in a population-based case-control sample. Method: We analyzed 43,144 non-Hispanic European-ancestry individuals (20,988 controls and 22,120 cases) drawn from 7 cohorts and 2 population-based case-control studies in the CAnceR RIsk Estimates Related to Susceptibility” (CARRIERS) consortium. Targeted sequencing was performed using a dual bar-coded QIAseq panel of breast cancer predisposition genes. Variant calling was conducted with Haplotype Caller and Vardict. The PRS was calculated based on 106 common variants using effect estimates from the largest published breast cancer GWAS. Genetic status was evaluated for 10 breast cancer predisposition genes: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2 and TP53. Lasso Penalized regression was performed to assess the combined effect on overall breast cancer of pathogenic variants and common variants (including main and interaction effects between age, family history, carrier status and PRS). The fraction of women at >2-fold increased risk (which is associated with approximately 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) was calculated for pathogenic variant carriers and non-carriers of different family history and age groups (<40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, >70yrs old). Results: Among non-carriers, one standard deviation change in the PRS was associated with a 1.63x change in odds of breast cancer. The best-fitting risk model did not include any PRS-by-carrier interaction terms, implying the relative risk gradient associated with PRS among women with pathogenic variants is similar to that among non-carriers. For carriers of pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes with no family history of breast cancer, the PRS can identify 60.6% of ATM pathogenic variant carriers and 30% of CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers that have less than 2-fold risk of breast cancer; when carriers have a family history of breast cancer, the PRS can identify 30% of ATM pathogenic variant carriers and 11.8% of CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers with less than 2-fold risk of breast cancer. Conclusion: In our large, population-based case-control study, the effect of the PRS among pathogenic variant carriers was not significantly different than among non-carriers. However, the PRS may be particularly important for estimating breast cancer risk among carriers of pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes such as CHEK2 and ATM, enabling a more precise approach for MRI screening strategy and breast cancer risk management. Citation Format: Chi Gao, Eric C. Polley, Chunling Hu, Steven N. Hart, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y. Lee, Jie Na, Nicholas J. Boddicker, Raed Samara, Paul Auer, Leslie Bernstein, Mia Gaudet, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Song Yao, Christopher Haiman, Janet E. Olson, Susan Neuhausen, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, David E. Goldgar, Susan Domchek, Katherine L. Nathanson, Fergus J. Couch, Peter Kraft, on behalf of the CARRIERS consortium. Polygenic risk scores provide clinically meaningful risk stratification among women carrying moderate penetrance pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes: Results from the CARRIERS study [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 PD3-02.

Abstract Germline mutations in several cancer predisposition genes included in hereditary multigene testing panels have been associated with increased breast cancer risk. However, estimates of breast cancer risks for each gene have in large part been derived from studies of high-risk populations enriched for family history of breast and ovarian cancer, young age of breast cancer diagnosis, or founder mutations. The breast cancer risks associated with mutations in many of these genes in the general population remain to be clearly defined. As clinical hereditary cancer genetic testing is already provided to many women at increased risk and may soon be offered to all breast cancer patients, population-based risk estimates associated with predisposition gene mutations will be needed for appropriate clinical management of mutation carriers. The “CAnceR RIsk Estimates Related to Susceptibility” (CARRIERS) consortium of 17 cohort-based case-control, population-based case-control, and family studies focused on estimation of population-based breast cancer risks and penetrance analysis for mutations in known and candidate breast cancer predisposition genes. Germline DNA from 39486 breast cancer cases and 35868 matched controls was subjected to dual bar-coded QIAseq multiplex amplification of 1733 target regions in 37 predisposition genes. Products from sets of 768 samples were pooled and sequenced in each lane of a HiSeq 4000 system. Mutations were called by GATK Haplotype Caller and Verdict. High quality sequence data was obtained for 99.3% of target regions. Here we report on results from 34741 population-based breast cancer cases and 32728 matched unaffected controls. The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis for cases was 61.2 years and mean age for controls was 61.1 years. Overall, 20.9% of cases and 14.3% of controls had a family history of breast cancer. Furthermore, 74.3% of cases and 75.8% of controls were non-Hispanic white, whereas 13.3% of cases and 15.3% of controls were African American. Among cases with tumor information available, 81.7% were ER-positive and 7.7% were triple negative breast cancers (TNBC). We assessed mutation frequencies in 24 genes including 12 established breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, andTP53). The overall mutation frequency was 6.2% in cases and 2.7% in controls. Case-control association analysis after adjusting for study, age, family history of breast cancer, and race/ethnicity showed that BRCA1(OR=7.45; 95%CI:5.24-10.95) and BRCA2(OR=5.31; 95%CI:4.15-6.88) were associated with high risks of breast cancer in the general population. However, PALB2mutations were only associated with moderate risks (OR=3.63; 95%CI:2.57-5.26). ATMmutations conferred attenuated risks (OR=1.83; 95%CI:1.47-2.28) relative to studies of high-risk families or young onset breast cancers. NBNmutations were not associated with increased breast cancer risk. Mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51Dand XRCC2were specifically significantly associated with moderate risks of ER-negative breast cancer and TNBC, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1and CHEK2were specifically significantly associated with ER-positive disease. On the basis of these findings age-related absolute breast cancer risks for commonly mutated genes were estimated. Overall, results from the CARRIERS study establish that mutations in predisposition genes are associated with lower risks of breast cancer in the general population than in enriched populations including high-risk families and young onset, bilateral, or multiple primary cases. We anticipate that the results from this study will inform cancer screening and other risk management strategies for women in the general population with mutations in predisposition genes. Citation Format: Fergus J Couch, Chunling Hu, Steven N Hart, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y Lee, Jie Na, Chi Gao, Nicholas J Boddicker, Bruce Eckloff, Raed Samara, Josh Klebba, Christine B Ambrosone, Hoda Anton-Culver, Paul Auer, Leslie Bernstein, Mia M Gaudet, Christopher Haiman, Esther M John, Susan Neuhausen, Janet E Olson, Tuya Pal, Julie R Palmer, Dale P Sandler, Jack A Taylor, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Celine M Vachon, Clarice Weinberg, Song Yao, Jeffrey N Weitzel, David E Goldgar, Susan M Domchek, Katherine L Nathanson, Peter Kraft, Eric C Polley. Population-based breast cancer risk estimates for predisposition gene mutations: Results from the CARRIERS study [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 PD3-01.

Abstract Background The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies. Methods Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to >100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer. Conclusions The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.

Background: Intraoperative cardiac arrest (ICA) has a reported frequency of 1 in 10,000 anesthetics but has a much higher estimated incidence in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Single-center studies of ICA in OLT are limited by small sample size that prohibits multivariable regression analysis of risks. METHODS: Utilizing data from 7 academic medical centers, we performed a retrospective, observational study of 5296 adult liver transplant recipients (18–80 years old) between 2000 and 2017 to identify the rate of ICA, associated risk factors, and outcomes. RESULTS: ICA occurred in 196 cases (3.7% 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2–4.2) and mortality occurred in 62 patients (1.2%). The intraoperative mortality rate was 31.6% in patients who experienced ICA. In a multivariable generalized linear mixed model, ICA was associated with body mass index (BMI) <20 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.04, 95% CI, 1.05–3.98; P = .0386), BMI ≥40 (2.16 [1.12–4.19]; P = .022), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score: (MELD 30–39: 1.75 [1.09–2.79], P = .02; MELD ≥40: 2.73 [1.53–4.85], P = .001), postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) (3.83 [2.75–5.34], P < .001), living donors (2.13 [1.16–3.89], P = .014), and reoperation (1.87 [1.13–3.11], P = .015). Overall 30-day and 1-year mortality were 4.18% and 11.0%, respectively. After ICA, 30-day and 1-year mortality were 43.9% and 52%, respectively, compared to 2.6% and 9.3% without ICA. CONCLUSIONS: We established a 3.7% incidence of ICA and a 1.2% incidence of intraoperative mortality in liver transplantation and confirmed previously identified risk factors for ICA including BMI, MELD score, PRS, and reoperation and identified new risk factors including living donor and length of surgery in this multicenter retrospective cohort. ICA, while rare, is associated with high intraoperative mortality, and future research must focus on therapy to reduce the incidence of ICA.

AbstractPrevious transcriptome‐wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype‐specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta‐analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER−). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER− subtypes, using a case‐only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER– breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS‐significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast‐cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS‐significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER− breast cancer.

Abstract Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) are widely used in the treatment of patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) however, only 30% of relapsed MM patients respond to single agent therapy and most patients eventually develop drug resistance. The molecular target of IMiDs in MM is cereblon but other parallel pathways or downstream events which enhance or preclude drug responsiveness are unknown. We therefore conducted a genome scale small interfering RNA (siRNA) lethality study in MM in the presence of increasing concentrations of lenalidomide. Primary screening was performed in a single-siRNA-per-well format with the human druggable genome siRNA set V4 comprising four siRNAs targeting each of 6,992 genes (total 27968 siRNAs). Lenalidomide was added 24 hours post transfection and cell viability was measured by ATP-dependent luminescence at 144 hours after transfection. Primary screen data was rigorously evaluated for multiple quality control metrics and found to exceed all expected performance parameters with >98% global transfection efficiency, <0.25 CV values, and minimal plate-to-plate and set-to-set variations observed. Hit selection was performed by analysis of IC50 value shift in the presence of each testing siRNA compared with three different control siRNA oligos. 160 candidate genes that enhance lenalidomide sensitivity upon silencing (sensitizers) were selected and re-screened with four siRNA oligos targeting each gene. 50 genes were identified as reproducible lenalidomide sensitizers including three Peroxisome (PEX) family proteins (PEX1, PEX10 and PEX7) and seven RAB family proteins (RAB17, RAB1A, RAB26, RAB30, RAB36, RAB4A and RAB8A). Four kinase genes were also identified in sensitizer hits and two of these, I-Kappa-B Kinase-Alpha (IKK1 or CHUK) and ribosomal protein S6 kinase (RPS6KA3 or RSK2), encode proteins that associate with significance together with a phosphorylation dependent transcription factor (CREB1) in Toll signaling pathways (p-value 0.0068). RSK2 is a serine/threonine-protein kinase that acts downstream of oncogenic FGFR3 mediated signaling and is phosphorylated by ERK (MAPK1/ERK2 and MAPK3/ERK1 signaling) during hematopoietic transformation. Phosphorylated RSK2 was previously reported to be frequently expressed in myeloma cell lines and primary myeloma cells. Using lentiviral shRNA expression, we demonstrated that knockdown of RSK2 in three genetically variable MM cell lines induced cyctocytoxiticy and consistently sensitized to lenalidomide. Two selective small molecular inhibitors of RSK2 (SL 0101-1 and BI-D1870) were then demonstrated to synergize with lenalidomide to induce myeloma cell cytotoxicixity. To further understand the mechanism underlying sensitization, immunoblotting analysis was performed to look at downstream changes after either RSK2 knockdown or RSK2 inhibition by BI-D1870. We found that both RSK2 knockdown and BI-D1870 treatment, mimicking lenalidomide treatment or cereblon inhibition, induced downregulation of both IRF4 and MYC in MM cells. The combination of lenalidomide and BI-D1870 not only produced a substantial synergistic effect inducing MM cytotoxicity, but also demonstrated a significant enhancement of downregulation of IRF4 and MYC. Forced overexpression of RSK2 attenuated the synergistic effects of lenalidomide and BI-D1870. In summary, our high throughput screen identified multiple gene targets that associate with increasing sensitivity to IMiDs in MM cells, of which, RSK2 was further validated by both shRNA silencing and specific inhibitors as an effective target to cooperate with IMiDs to induce myeloma cytotoxicity. Clinical studies of RSK2 inhibition in concert with IMiD (cereblon inhibitor) therapy would be appropriate. Disclosures: Stewart: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria.

Abstract Background:A goal of “post-genomic” cancer care is development of specific, affordable, reliable and rapid next-generation sequencing-based assays determining prognosis, therapeutic selection and minimal disease monitoring, replacing older technologies in the diagnostic and monitoring workup. In this regard, we designed and deployed a custom gene panel for identification of mutations, copy-number changes and clonal frequency in multiple myeloma (MM) samples. Methods: The MM Mutation Panel Version 2.0 (M3P 2.0)1 includes 1271 amplicons from 77 genes that are either mutated in MM (genes with a published mutation incidence ≥3%), represent critical pathophysiological pathways, are targetable with small molecule-based therapies and/or are associated with drug resistance (eg. XBP-1, CRBN, IZKF, IRF4). The amplicons are spread across 21 chromosomes, allowing the identification of copy-number changes in these regions. Results: We have sequenced 38 MM cases (150 will be presented) with paired tumor-germline DNA samples, using only 20ng of DNA for library preparation. Patients (Pts) included 29 untreated and 9 MM pts with multi drug refractory disease. Coverage depth averaged 964X. Hyperdiploid MM was successfully identified in 45% of cases, del(13q) in 34%, del(1p) in 18%, del(17p) in 8% and gain of 1q in 13%. Array CGH in representative cases confirmed concordance with semiconductor sequencing. Overall, 71 exonic missense and 3 nonsense mutations were detected, and 7 frameshift indels. In 89% of the pts a mutation in at least one M3P2.0 gene was identified (range 1-8). 92% of mutations were predicted damaging (Provean, Polyphene-2 or SIFT). Most commonly mutated were KRAS (37%), NRAS (21%), BRAF (13%), TP53, CDKN1B, DIS3 (each 11%), FAM46C, STAT3, and IRF4 (each 8%). The MEK-ERK pathway was mutated in 61% of cases and in 3 cases more than one gene in this pathway (NRAS, KRAS, BRAF) was simultaneously mutated. Six mutations in BRAF were identified in 5 untreated pts, 3 of them known to be activating and targetable (Val600E). Other commonly mutated pathways were the NFKB pathway in 24% of pts and the Cyclin D pathway, mutated in 16% of cases. Genes of the cereblon pathway (CRBN, IRF4, IKZF3), essential for the action of lenalidomide (len) were mutated in 5 Pts. One newly diagnosed and len refractory Pt harbored a subclonal CRBN mutation (Asn316Lys, allelic fraction [AF] 20%) as well as 4 clonal IRF4 mutations within the DNA binding domain of the gene (Lys89Asn (AF 78%), Lys77Glu, Ser48Arg and Cys49Ser (AF 80% each). Another IRF4 mutated (Lys123Arg, AF 90%) hemodialysis dependent Pt was responsive to dose adapted treatment of len and dexamethasone (dex). Mutations in the C2H2-type 3 region of IKZF3 in a len resistant (Gly191Arg, AF 48%) pt occured as well as in a len and dex responsive (Arg242Gly, AF 52%) Pt. Furthermore, we identified a truncating XBP1 mutation (p.Leu232*, 97% AF) in a Pt refractory to bortezomib. One patient harbored a mutation in the steroid receptor NR3C1 (Pro255Leu, 22% variant reads). Finally, integrated mutation and copy-number data identified biallelic deletions of CDKN2C and FAM46C in a multi drug refractory Pt. Mutation and/or copy-number losses in both alleles were found in DIS3 in 4 Pts, in CYLD, TP53 and TRAF3 in 2 Pts and in CARD11, CDKN2A, CDKN1B, RB1and STAT3 in one Pt each. Conclusion: In summary, we report the initial results from 38 MM Pts using a custom MM sequencing panel which employs small amounts of DNA requiring very few cells and providing deep coverage in clinically meaningful timeframes. Our findings frequently include prognostically significant information, actionable targets and mutations in genes related to drug resistance. Targeted mutation profiling will likely become part of the clinical workup in MM and our M3P2.0 mutation panel is a suitable tool to provide information needed to guide precision therapy and to set the basis for individually tailored treatment decisions. 1. Kortuem KM. et al. Development Of a 47 Gene Sequencing Panel For Common Mutations Present In Multiple Myeloma: Preliminary Results In 77 p53 Deleted Patients, ASH 2013. Disclosures Stewart: Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Bruins:OncoSpire: Salary support Other. Vasmatzis:OncoSpire: Salary Support Other. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline Diagnostics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Bergsagel:MundiPharma: Research Funding; OncoEthix: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.