Citations

Three‐dimensional organization of the chromatin has important roles in transcription, replication, DNA repair, and pathologic events such as translocations. There are two fundamental ways to study higher‐order chromatin organization: microscopic and molecular approaches. In this review, we briefly introduce the molecular approaches, focusing on chromosome conformation capture or “3C” technology and its derivatives, which can be used to probe chromatin folding at resolutions beyond that provided by microscopy techniques. We further discuss the different types of data generated by the 3C‐based methods and how they can be used to answer distinct biological questions. J. Cell. Physiol. 230: 31–35, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and HER2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. Neratinib (N), one of the experimental agents evaluated in I-SPY 2, graduated in the HR-HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; T->AC). HER2- patients were randomized to receive N+T- >AC vs. T->AC. For HER2+ patients, neratinib was administered in place of trastuzumab (N+T->AC vs. H+T->AC). Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of neratinib response. Methods: 115 patients in the neratinib arm and 76 concurrently randomized controls had Agilent 44K microarrays and pCR data available for analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the neratinib and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and in receptor subsets. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Our analyses do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: There are 133 MP1 patients (neratinib: 74, Control: 59) and 58 MP2 patients (neratinib: 41, Control: 17), 84% (49) of which are Her2-. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. Neratinib (n=115)Control (n=76)MP1 (n=74)MP2 (n=41)MP1 (n=59)MP2 (n=17)HER2- (n=105)0 / 1715 / 337 / 395 / 16HER2+ (n=86)22 / 574 / 85 / 200 / 1 MP2, one of the 10 eligible signatures, did not meet the graduation threshold; and MP1/MP2 did not show a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (OR in neratinib relative to control arm = 1.25). The MP1/MP2 x treatment interaction remains non-significant after adjustment for HR and HER2 status (p=0.54). In HER2- patients receiving neratinib, 45% (15/33) of MP2 patients achieved a pCR, compared to 0% (0/17) of MP1 patients. In the HER2- controls, there is a 31% pCR rate in MP2 (5/16) vs. 18% in MP1 (7/39) patients (OR=2.14). This difference in performance between treatment arms appears significant (p=0.041). 90% of HER2+ patients are MP1, thus MP1/MP2 status x treatment interaction within the HER2+ subtype cannot be evaluated. Conclusion: Within the I-SPY 2 population as a whole, MP1/MP2 stratification does not appear to be a specific biomarker of response to neratinib relative to the control arm. The number of HER2- patients is small and precludes any definitive conclusion, but these data motivate further investigation of the biological mechanisms distinguishing MP1 from MP2 to better understand chemotherapy and/or neratanib responsiveness. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy Boughey, Doug Yee, Debu Tripathy, Angela DeMichele, Rita Nanda, Steven Chiu, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Hank Kaplan, Stacey Moulder, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Kirsten Edmiston, Anthony Elias, Toncred Styblo, Barbara Haley, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian L Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, W Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-29.

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and Her2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. HER2- patients were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy or the oral PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin (V/C) and chemotherapy. V/C graduated in the triple-negative (TN) signature, where MP2 was not an eligible signature for graduation. Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of response to V/C. Methods:115 HER2- patients (V/C: 71 and concurrent controls: 44) were considered in this analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the V/C and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate. To assess MP1/MP2 in the context of the graduating signature, we added the MP2 patients to the graduating TN subset and evaluated the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: In the V/C arm vs. concurrent controls, there were 66 MP1 (V/C: 32, Control: 34) and 49 MP2 patients (V/C: 39, Control: 10), 78% of which are TN. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. V/C (n=71)Control (n=44)MP1 (n=32)MP2 (n=39)MP1 (n=34)MP2 (n=10)TN (n=59)3 / 819 / 303 / 132 / 8HR+HER2- (n=56)1 / 244 / 94 / 210 / 2 The OR between MP1/MP2 risk groups for predicting pCR is 9.71 in the V/C arm (p=6.63E-05), in comparison to an OR of 0.97 in the control arm (p=1). There is a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p=0.023), which remains upon adjusting for HR status (p= 0.028). Based on the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model, a Phase III trial with 300 MP2 patients has a 95% predictive probability of success. When the MP2 patients are added to the graduating TN subset, the OR associated with V/C is 4.36, which is comparable to that of the TN signature (OR: 4.29), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼10%. Conclusion: In our exploratory analysis, MP2 suggests higher sensitivity to V/C combination therapy relative to controls. This observation has prompted an investigation into the biological mechanisms distinguishing the MP1/MP2 subtype that may account for this specificity. Citation Format: Denise M Wolf, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Angela DeMichele, Hank Kaplan, Doug Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Rebecca Viscuzi, Judy Boughey, Stacey Moulder, Steven Chui, Qamar Khan, Toncred Styblo, Kirsten Edmiston, Donald Northfelt, Anthony Elias, Barbara Haley, Debu Tripathy, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to veliparib/carboplatin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-25.

Abstract Background: The development of distant metastases is the strongest prognostic factor associated with cancer mortality. Customization of treatment based on molecular profiling of a patient’s primary tumor has yielded promising results and has opened a new paradigm for treating patients with advanced disease. Nevertheless profiling the primary tumor may not reflect the actionable molecular drivers of the metastatic lesions. In the last few years a large number of genomic and proteomic studies have demonstrated that at the molecular level metastatic lesions significantly differ from matched primary tumors. The impact of metastasis site organ microenvironments on breast cancer primary tumors has been only partially explored. Since most targeted therapies work by modulating aberrantly-activated protein kinase signaling, the aim of this study was to utilize reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA) to explore whether metastatic lesions derived from different patients, but invading the same host target organ showed similarities in their signaling architecture and presented with organ-specific targetable signatures. Methods: Snap frozen material collected from 14 metastatic breast cancer patients enrolled in a prospective phase II trial ("Side Out II") were used for this analysis. Sites of metastasis were: liver (n=7), skin/chest wall (n=4), and lung (n=3). All samples were subjected to Laser Capture Microdissection (LCM) and RPPA to measure the activation/phosphorylation levels of 12 FDA approved drug targets and linked substrates. Results: Among the 7 patients with liver metastases, p70S6K, c-Abl, ERK 1/2 were highly phosphorylated in 5 cases (71.4%), ErbB2/HER2 in 4 cases (57.1%), and AKT in 3 cases (42.8%). On the contrary, of the 4 patients with skin/chest wall lesions 3 showed high activation of ErbB2/HER2, ErbB3/HER3, and ERK 1/2 (75.0%) and 2 of EGFR (50.0%). Of note, none of the skin/chest wall lesions showed activation of AKT and only 1 case presented with activated p70S6K (25.0%). Lung metastasis showed an overall low activation of all 12 analytes measured. Discussion: Although this data is based on a relatively small number of samples and needs further validation, our initial analysis revealed potentially important trends that could have an impact in the prioritization and selection of targeted agents for metastatic breast cancer trials. We found that the distribution of the 12 FDA approved drug targets and downstream substrates varies between different metastatic sites. Thus, the emergent hypothesis from this work is that breast cancer patients with liver metastases may be more susceptible to AKT-mTOR directed targeted therapeutics and patients with skin/chest wall metastasis may benefit from therapies that target EGFR and/or downstream ERK signaling. Citation Format: Mariaelena Pierobon, Stephen P Anthony, K Alex Reeder, Nicholas J Robert, Donald W Northfelt, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Linda Vocila, Julia D Wulfkuhle, Bryant Dunetz, Lance A Liotta, Emanuel F Petricoin. Pathway activation mapping of metastatic breast cancer identifies potential organ-specific signatures: Implications for patient stratification to targeted treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-23.

Abstract Small Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary Hypercalcemic Type (SCCOHT) is a rare and highly aggressive malignancy that affects children and young women at a mean age of 24 (range 14 months - 58 years). SCCOHT is refractory to standard of care therapy for ovarian cancer, with ∼75% mortality within 18 months of diagnosis. The early age of onset of SCCOHT and reports of familial occurrence in some cases, strongly suggest an underlying hereditary etiology. To understand the molecular pathogenesis of SCCOHT, we performed next-generation genomic sequencing on a series of tumor and germline samples from SCCOHT patients. This analysis revealed germline and somatic inactivating mutations in SMARCA4, a subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex, in 75% (9/12) of SCCOHT patients. Moreover, immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of 15 tumors revealed that 87% (13/15) of tumors lacked SMARCA4 protein. The high prevalence of SMARCA4 mutations in SCCOHT has not been previously reported in other, more common ovarian carcinomas. We therefore examined the expression of SMARCA4 protein in 300 ovarian carcinomas of different histologies by IHC and found SMARCA4 protein loss in only 6 tumors. In addition, the BIN-67 SCCOHT cell line, which harbors 2 splice site mutations in SMARCA4, showed complete absence of SMARCA4 protein by Western blot while representative cell lines from 4 other ovarian carcinoma subtypes as well as immortalized granulosa cells (SVOG) and adult granulosa tumor cells (KGN) all maintained SMARCA4 expression. The prevalence of germline and sporadic SMARCA4 mutations as well as frequent SMARCA4 protein loss in SCCOHTs implicates this gene as a tumor suppressor in this cancer and more broadly suggests a role for the SWI/SNF complex in its pathogenesis. In addition to providing evidence to the pathogenesis of SCCOHT, this finding provides the opportunity to develop treatment approaches for SCCOHT based on targeting vulnerabilities of SMARCA4-deficient cells. Citation Format: Pilar Ramos, Anthony Karnezis, David Craig, Aleksandar Sekulic, Megan Russell, William Hendricks, Michael Barrett, Karey Shumansky, Yidong Yang, Sohrab Shah, Leah Prentice, Marco Marra, Jeffrey Kiefer, Victoria Zismann, Troy McEachron, Bodour Salhia, Joseph Pressey, John Farley, Stephen Anthony, Richard Roden, Heather Cunliffe, David Huntsman, Jeffrey Trent. The rare, highly malignant small cell carcinoma of the ovary displays common inactivating germline and somatic mutations in the tumor suppressor SMARCA4. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-202. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-LB-202

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II neoadjuvant trial in women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer using adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents added to standard chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Goal is to identify regimens that meet a high Bayesian predictive probability of statistical significance in a neoadjuvant 300-patient phase III trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Experimental regimens may “graduate” in 1 of 10 signatures, with a maximum of 120 patients. We report efficacy results for neratinib (N). Methods: Tumors ≥2.5cm by clinical exam & ≥2cm by imaging are eligible for screening. MP low risk/HR+/HER2- tumors are ineligible for randomization. Patients receive chemotherapy (paclitaxel qwk x 12, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide q2-3 wk x 4, T->AC). HER2- pts were randomized to N+T->AC vs. T->AC and HER2+ pts to N+T->AC vs. trastuzumab+T->AC. Analysis is intent-to-treat with pts who switch to non-protocol therapy regarded as non-pCRs. We provide estimated pCR rates (95% Bayesian probability intervals), probabilities of superiority of neratinib over control, and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in an equally randomized phase III trial. Results: Neratinib met the predictive probability criterion in HR-/HER2+, “graduated”, and accrual ceased [115 N patients (65 HER2+), 78 concurrently randomized controls (22 HER2+)]. The table shows results for all 10 signatures. Two patients (1 N and 1 control) withdrew consent and are not included. Conclusion: I-SPY 2's standing trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined patient subsets. In a modest number of patients, adaptive randomization successfully identified a biomarker signature (HR-/HER2+) for neratinib's further development. All HER2+ and MP+ tumors may also benefit from this regimen, consistent with preclinical data. Evaluation in I-SPY 3, a phase III registration trial, is planned. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability NeratinibIs Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIINeratinibControlALL32% (28-36%)23% (19%-28%)92%44%HR+23% (18%-28%)17% (11%-22%)81%40%HR-43% (37%-49%)31% (24%-38%)89%53%HER2+39% (33%-45%)23% (15%-30%)95%73%HER2-26% (21%-32%)24% (18%-29%)63%20%MP+*45% (38%-53%)29% (20%-39%)91%66%HR-/HER2-36% (29%-43%)30% (23%-38%)72%34%HR-/HER2+55% (46%-64%)32% (22%-43%)94%78%HR+/HER2+31% (24%-37%)17% (10%-24%)91%65%HR+/HER2-14% (8%-19%)16% (10%-21%)39%12%* MammaPrint 44K Array Low/High score was adjusted to MammaPrint High1 (MP-) or High2 (MP+), using a pre-defined median cut-point of I-SPY 1 participants, who fit the eligibility criteria of I-SPY 2. Citation Format: John W. Park, Minetta C. Liu, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Laura van 't Veer, Nola Hylton, Fraser Symmans, Meredith B. Buxton, A. Jo Chien, Amy Wallace, Michelle Melisko, Richard Schwab, Judy Boughey, Debashish Tripathy, Hank Kaplan, Rita Nanda, Stephen Chui, Kathy S. Albain, Stacy Moulder, Anthony Elias, Julie E. Lang, Kirsten Edminston, Donald Northfelt, David Euhus, Qamar Khan, Julia Lyandres, Sarah E. Davis, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Laura J. Esserman, Donald A. Berry. Neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer: Efficacy results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT227. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT227

Abstract Background: Previous data on the relationship between PD-L1 expression and activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies have been conflicting. MK-3475, a humanized monoclonal IgG4 antibody against PD-1, has demonstrated durable antitumor activity in MEL and NSCLC. We evaluated tumor PD-L1 expression and its relationship with outcomes in a phase I clinical trial of MK-3475. We also evaluated T cell activation as a pharmacodynamic marker of MK-3475 activity. Methods: 135 MEL pts received MK-3475 10 mg/kg Q2W, 10 mg/kg Q3W, or 2 mg/kg Q3W. Tumor response was assessed by RECIST 1.1 per independent central review, including requirement for a confirmatory CT scan. Pretreatment biopsy was required. Serial blood samples were collected before infusion at the start of cycles 1-5 (Q2W dosing) or 1-4 (Q3W dosing). Tumor PD-L1 expression was assessed by IHC. A preliminary cutoff of 1% of stained cells was used to define PD-L1 positivity. Absolute CD4+ and CD8+ T cell counts and the percentage of activated (HLA-DR as marker) CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in peripheral blood were assessed by multiplex flow cytometry (n = 101). Results: Median PFS was 36 weeks, 6-month overall survival (OS) rate was 89%, and 12-month OS rate was 81%. Median duration of response and OS were not reached. In the 116 pts with measurable disease, ORR was 41%. PFS and response rate were significantly associated with tumor PD-L1 expression (Table). At week 6, a statistically significant percent increase from baseline in the percentage of activated (HLA-DR+) CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was observed at all doses (pooled mean percent change [SE], +24.0% [4.7%] for HLA-DR+/CD8+, +17.5% [2.7%] for HLA-DR+/CD4+). Conclusions: Tumor PD-L1 expression levels were associated with tumor response and PFS in MEL pts treated with MK-3475; activity was also observed in pts with low PD-L1 expression. As assessed by HLA-DR expression, post-treatment T cell activation in the circulating pool was increased at all doses tested. Patients WithMeasurable Disease and Interpretable PD-L1 IHC ResultsPatients With InterpretablePD-L1 IHC Results and PFS and OS Data PD-L1 TumorExpressionNORR, n (%)NPFS at 6 months, % (95% CI)Median PFSOS at 6 months, % (95% CI)Median OSPositive (membrane staining in ≥1% of cells)5529 (53)6058 (47-72)10.6 mo93(87-100)Not reachedNegative (membrane staining in <1% of cells)161* (6)2232 (16-64)2.9 mo75(58-97)Not reachedHR (95% CI) for PD-L1-positive vs negative____0.54(0.28-1.05)_0.67(0.25-1.83)One-sidedP value(PD-L1 association test)_<0.004 (logistic regression)__0.034(Cox regression)_0.220(Cox regression)*IPI-pretreated patient who received MK-3475 10 mg/kg Q2W. Citation Format: Adil I. Daud, Omid Hamid, Antoni Ribas, F. Stephen Hodi, Wen-Jen Hwu, Richard Kefford, Jedd Wolchok, Peter Hersey, Jeffrey S. Weber, Richard Joseph, Tara C. Gangadhar, Roxana S. Dronca, Amita Patnaik, Hassane Zarour, Anthony M. Joshua, Kevin Gergich, Dianna Wu, Jared K. Lunceford, Kenneth Emancipator, Marisa Dolled-Filhart, Nicole Li, Scot Ebbinghaus, S. Peter Kang, Caroline Robert. Antitumor activity of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody MK-3475 in melanoma(MEL): Correlation of tumor PD-L1 expression with outcome. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT104. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT104

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncologists' preferences for methods to increase delivery of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients. Methods: An email list of 6844 physicians at NCI Designated Cancer Centers was generated using publically available online resources. An online survey was conducted in the fall of 2013 to assess tobacco assessment and cessation practices by physicians, barriers to providing cessation support, and methods to improve access to cessation services for cancer patients. Results of this survey are compared to similar survey findings by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Results: Of 6844 electronically delivered survey invitations, we received 887 responses (13%). Consistent with previously published ASCO and IASLC surveys, 90% of physicians agreed that tobacco use by patients affects cancer treatment outcomes (vs. 87-92% in ASCO/IASLC), 90% of respondents reported that they ask patients about their tobacco use (vs. 90% in ASCO/IASLC), and 83% routinely advise tobacco users to quit (vs. 80-82% in ASCO/IASLC). However, only 37% of respondents regularly discussed medications, and 35% actively treated patients (vs. 39-44% in ASCO/IASLC). Most (71%) responding oncologists preferred cessation support be provided at the initial patient consult, and few (11%) were concerned about the use of tobacco cessation medications. Lack of time and lack of available resources were the dominant barriers to the administration of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients by oncologists. Only 10% of oncologists believed they were adequately trained to counsel patients on smoking cessation, but 55% reported that training for someone else in their clinic would increase tobacco cessation support. When asked what provider they prefer to administer cessation support to cancer patients, 16% reported a primary care physician, 18% reported a mid-level (nurse practitioner or physician assistant), 50% reported any other clinical staff, and only 1% preferred to personally provide cessation support. Whereas most (58%) oncologists preferred to have dedicated cessation services within their institution, 38% reported they would use dedicated services either within, or outside their institution. Conclusions: Most oncologists at NCI Designated Cancer Centers recognize the importance of tobacco cessation, but prefer to have tobacco cessation support for cancer patients provided by another trained professional. Citation Format: Alix Pommerenke, Anthony Alberg, Thomas H. Brandon, Ivana Croghan, Michael K. Cummings, Carolyn Dresler, Ellen R. Gritz, Roy Herbst, Scott Leischow, James R. Marshall, Benjamin Toll, Graham Warren. Physician preferences in tobacco cessation support for cancer patients: A survey of physicians at National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Centers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 5049. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-5049

Abstract Background: Nulliparity is an established endometrial cancer risk factor, but whether this association is related to infertility is unclear. Although there are many underlying causes of infertility, few studies have assessed risk relationships according to specific causes. Despite concerns that most treatments induce ovulation and that the endometrium is highly hormonally-responsive, previous studies have provided conflicting results on treatment associations. Methods: To address these issues, we conducted a pooled analysis of 8,151 cases and12,471 controls from 2 cohort and 12 case-control studies conducted in 1982 to 2009 (N. America, Europe, Australia, Asia). All studies provided self-reported infertility, causes and treatments, except for 1 study that relied on data from national registries. Study-specific exposures and covariate data were harmonized across studies. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for study, age, interview year, race, parity, oral contraceptive and menopausal hormone use, and body mass index. If data were not reported for a particular variable, that study was excluded from the variable-specific analysis. Results: Nulliparous women had an elevated endometrial cancer risk compared with parous women (adjusted OR=1.73; 95% CI: 1.58-1.90).Women with self-reported infertility also had an increased risk (adjusted OR=1.22; 95% CI: 1.13-1.32) compared with those without infertility issues, even after adjusting for parity; the strongest associations was seen among studies that defined infertility as unsuccessfully trying to conceive for 2+ years (adjusted OR=1.31; 95% CI: 1.07-1.60). Infertility was associated with similar risks among nulliparous (1.22; 1.10-1.48) and parous (1.22; 1.12-1.34) women, although there was no increased risk associated with infertility among those who had given birth to 3+ children. Two infertility causes associated with risk elevation were endometriosis (adjusted OR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.46-2.95 compared with women no infertility problems) and anovulation (adjusted OR=1.40; 95% CI: 1.16-1.70). Based on relatively small numbers, none of the individual treatments (in vitro fertilization, selective estrogen response modulators, gonatropins, progestins, estrogens) were substantially related to risk. Conclusion: Based on mainly self-reported infertility data, we found that parity and infertility independently contribute to endometrial cancer risk, with parity seemingly being the predominant risk predictor. Understanding residual endometrial cancer relationships related to causes of infertility and infertility treatment may benefit from documented medical information on causes of infertility and treatment parameters. Citation Format: Hannah P. Yang, Linda S. Cook, Elisabete Weiderpass, Hans-Olov Adami, Kristin E. Anderson, Hui Cai, James R. Cerhan, Tess Clendenen, Ashley S. Felix, Christine Friedenreich, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Marc T. Goodman, Xiaolin Liang, Jolanta Lissowska, Lingeng Lu, Anthony M. Magliocco, Susan E. McCann, Kristen B. Moysich, Sara H. Olson, Malcolm C. Pike, Silvia Polidoro, Fulvio Ricceri, Harvey Risch, Carlotta Sacerdote, V. Wendy Setiawan, Xiao Ou Shu, Amanda B. Spurdle, Britton Trabert, Penelope M. Webb, Nicolas Wentzensen, Yong-Bing Xiang, Youming Xu, Herbert Yu, Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, Louise A. Brinton. Infertility and risk of incident endometrial carcinoma: a pooled analysis from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2167. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2167