Citations

To determine if the revised US FRAX can identify those at high risk for fractures at any skeletal site, we studied 250 women and 249 men ≥ 40 years old from an age-stratified random sample of Rochester, MN residents. At baseline, femoral neck (FN) bone density was assessed, as were the clinical risk factors included in FRAX, along with additional fracture risk factors such as bone turnover markers and fall history. Fracture ascertainment through periodic interviews and comprehensive medical record review was performed over 10 years of followup. In both women and men, a higher FRAX probability at baseline was associated with greater subsequent likelihood of a major osteoporotic fracture. However, a relative 10% increase in the FRAX 10-year fracture probability was also associated with a 1.4-fold increase (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.7) in other fractures in women and a 1.7-fold increase (95% CI 0.8–3.1) in men. Furthermore, FRAX predicted asymptomatic vertebral fractures and fractures generally in both sexes. The addition of risk factors not currently included in FRAX did not appear to improve the accuracy of fracture risk prediction. FRAX may provide a conservative estimate of risk for major osteoporotic fractures, but it also predicts fractures generally.

Abstract Background: The five year survival rate for women with ovarian cancer (OC) is less than 40%. Crucial to improving the outcomes for ovarian cancer patients is the development of accurate pre-clinical models of human epithelial OC, which can be used to unravel the mechanisms underlying its evolution and behaviour. Methods: We have generated a novel xenograft model of human high-grade serous OC (HG-SOC) in order to enable preclinical molecular and drug response assessment of individual HG-SOC: this includes a comparison of standard OC xeno-transplantion approaches (intra-peritoneal, subcutaneous and sub renal capsular), with the novel use of the rodent ovarian bursa, the orthotopic site. Utilising the rodent bursa may better replicate the relevant microenvironment and increase the success of EOC xeno-transplantion. Other aspects designed to optimize the model include the use of NOD-SCID-IL-2rg recipient mice, systemic estrogen supplementation and transplantation of fresh human HG-SOC fragments which have had no prior in vitro culture. Histological, functional and molecular analysis of the novel xenograft cohort (at baseline and following xenotransplantation) includes histological review; documentation of in vitro Homologous Recombination (HR) DNA repair and drug response capabilities (using novel α-irradiation and explant drug assays); classification according to molecular subtype (Tothill classfier); documentation of NHEJ pathway status, BRCA1/2 status and other DNA repair gene status. In vivo drug treatment studies are being performed, with the choice of treatment targeted to the specific molecular characteristics of the HG-SOC in question. Results: Fourteen consecutive chemotherapy naive potentially HG-SOC samples have been collected. Corresponding clinical data has been collected. Data concerning DNA repair capability and response to DNA damaging agents will be presented, including IHC for markers of DNA damage (γH2AX), DNA repair (RAD51) and apoptosis (capsase 3 cleavage). HG-SOC in this cohort have been classified according to Tothilll (Tothill et al 2008). Eight appropriate HG-SOC have been transplanted and 5 of the first 6 have successfully xenografted, with phenotyping of xenografts underway. In vivo analysis of response to cisplatin treatment and other relevant therapeutics will be presented. Conclusions: A novel xenograft model has been developed of human HG-SOC, which includes comparative characterization of important prognostic features both in the baseline panel of fresh human HG-SOC and in subsequent xenografts. This clinically, functionally and molecularly annotated consecutive xenograft cohort of HG-SOC will provide outstanding utility for the development of improved therapeutic approaches. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3276. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-3276

Abstract Background: Estrogen receptors are over-expressed in around 70% of breast cancer cases. The genetic changes that occur during aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment are not well understood and may differ depending upon the patient's response phenotype. Methods: We performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) of matched blood, pre-treatment, and post-treatment biopsy samples from 22 estrogen receptor positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. For 5 cases, we performed the whole genome sequencing (WGS) on patients’ matched normal, two pre AI-treatment, and two post AI-treatment DNA isolates from biopsy samples. We validated all putative coding and non-coding somatic mutations using deep sequencing. By comparing the validated somatic mutations from pre- and post- AI treatment biopsy samples, we were able to determine the alterations in the tumor genomes. In every case we defined the clonal architecture of each pair of pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsy samples by comparing the variant allele frequencies from thousands of validated somatic mutations. Results: Comparisons of the two pre AI-treatment biopsy samples from the same patient indicates that the variant allele frequencies of mutations showed high concordances in all 5 cases, 0.74 to 0.95 range of correlation coefficient. Only a small percentage of somatic mutations were detected in one pre-treatment sample and not the other (4.65% overall). In comparing the somatic variations between pre-treatment and matched post-treatment biopsy samples in 22 cases, we found that patients with good clinical response to AI treatment retained known driver mutations only in their pre-treatment tumors. Conversely, those patients with poor clinical response presented new driver mutations in their post-treatment samples. Furthermore, the variant allele frequency for most mutated genes decreased in post AI treatment samples for patients with good AI treatment response; on the contrary, the variant allele frequency increased for patients with poor clinical response. Conclusions: From WGS of matched normal, pre-treatment, and post-treatment biopsy samples, we identified new driver genes mutated in patients with poor clinical response, while patients with good clinical response had lost mutated driver genes in their post-treatment biopsy samples. The genetic landscape revealed by WGS of pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsy samples reveals mutational repertoires are remodeled by AI therapy. This finding suggests deep sequencing of AI treated samples will be necessary to reveal the complete complement of mutations present in a patient's tumor. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-423. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-423

Abstract SGI-110 is a novel second generation HMA, formulated as a low volume SQ injection. It is designed as a dinucleotide incorporating decitabine and guanosine, to prolong in vivo exposure and potentially improve efficacy of its active component, decitabine by protecting decitabine from rapid deamination by cytidine deaminase. Preclinically, SGI-110 demonstrated potent activity in-vivo using different routes of administration. A randomized Phase 1-2 FIH PK/PD-guided, dose-escalation study is being conducted in subjects with relapsed/refractory intermediate or high-risk MDS or AML. The objective of the first stage of the study is to determine the safety and tolerability of SGI-110 and to establish the MTD and the biologically effective dose (BED). Subjects are randomized to one of two SQ regimens (daily x5 or once weekly x3, both given in 28-day courses). PD is evaluated by LINE-1 global DNA hypomethylation. The second stage of the study will be a randomized Phase 2 dose expansion, once the BED and MTD have been determined. Currently, 5 dose-cohorts have been fully enrolled, (n= 55) at doses ranging from 3mg/m2 to 60 mg/m2 daily x5, and 6mg/m2 to 90 mg/m2 weekly x3 but are not yet fully evaluable. PK guidance has allowed rapid dose escalation, and PD assessment of global hypomethylation has been correlated with increased dose and exposure levels. Apart from manageable local injection site pain, SGI-110 has been well tolerated. Other AE's were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, or anemia. There have been 3 remissions in relapsed AML subjects: 1 CR with weekly (60mg/m2) and 1 PR and 1 CR with daily (36 and 60 mg/m2 respectively). The PK profile showed efficient conversion of SGI-110 to decitabine achieving exposures in the therapeutic range as predicted from the SGI-110 rational design, characterized by decitabine AUC in therapeutic range (cohorts 4-5), lower Cmax, and longer effective half life, as compared to historical data based on molar equivalent doses of IV decitabine. Dose-dependent hypomethylation induction in the first 5 cohorts was observed. The subject who achieved a CR had the highest degree of hypomethylation induction of all subjects tested to date, and also the highest decitabine AUC in the cohort. Updated efficacy, safety, PK, and PD data of both regimens will be presented. SGI-110 is safe and well tolerated to date; biologically effective and therapeutic dose levels have been achieved with little toxicity so far with both regimens. Preliminary efficacy (PR+CR) has been observed in relapsed AML subjects. The PK profile showed efficient conversion of SGI-110 to decitabine with achievable therapeutic exposures, longer apparent half life, and lower Cmax than predicted equivalent decitabine doses given IV. Global Hypomethylating effects were observed at all dose levels, evaluated to date with both regimens. The results justify the progress of the study to the second dose-expansion Phase 2 stage after establishing the BED and MTD. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-214. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-214

Background Clinical classification of rare sequence changes identified in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is essential for appropriate genetic counselling of individuals carrying these variants. We previously showed that variant BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln in the BRCA1 transcriptional transactivation domain demonstrated equivocal results from a series of functional assays, and proposed that this variant may confer low to moderate risk of cancer. Methods Measures of genetic risk (report of family history, segregation) were assessed for 68 BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) families recruited through family cancer clinics, comparing results with 34 families carrying the previously classified pathogenic BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp (R1699W) mutation at the same residue, and to 243 breast cancer families with no BRCA1 pathogenic mutation (BRCA-X). Results Comparison of BRCA1 carrier prediction scores of probands using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool revealed that BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln variant carriers had family histories that were less ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp mutation carriers (p<0.00001), but more ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA-X families (p=0.0004). Further, modified segregation analysis of the subset of 30 families with additional genotyping showed that BRCA1 c.5096G >A p.Arg1699Gln had reduced penetrance compared with the average truncating BRCA1 mutation penetrance (p=0.0002), with estimated cumulative risks to age 70 of breast or ovarian cancer of 24%. Conclusions Our results provide substantial evidence that the BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) variant, demonstrating ambiguous functional deficiency across multiple assays, is associated with intermediate risk of breast and ovarian cancer, highlighting challenges for risk modelling and clinical management of patients of this and other potential moderate-risk variants.

Abstract Background: Cyr61, also known as CCN1, is a survival and pro-angiogenic factor overexpressed in invasive breast tumors that promotes tumorigenicity. We investigated whether Cyr61 plays important roles in breast cancer and evaluated its potential role as a chemotherapeutical target. Methods: We analyzed Cyr61 expression in a tissue microarray from breast cancer patients consisting of primary breast carcinomas and recurrences. Cyr61 was silenced in the metastatic MDA-MB-231 cells using a Cyr61-specific short hairpin RNA (Cyr61-shRNA). The effect of Cyr61 silencing on anchorage dependent- and independent growth, migration and invasiveness was characterized in vitro. The mechanism by which Cyr61 mediates the proliferation effects was investigated. The effect of Cyr61 in tumor growth was investigated in a subcutaneous orthotopic tumor xenograft model and the histological and immunohistochemical analysis ware performed. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Cyr61 is highly expressed in about 47% of the metastatic breast cancer patients analyzed. The expression is higher in the recurrences than in the primary tumors. Silencing Cyr61 inhibits cell proliferation, prevents anchorage-dependent and -independent growth, and suppresses the invasive potential of the cells by inhibiting migration in vitro. We also found that silencing Cyr61 decreases the expression of its own receptor αvβ3, and decreases its signaling activities. Remarkably, the in vivo studies showed that after silencing Cyr61 the tumor burden is significantly decreased and there is poor vascularized compared to control tumors. Conclusions: Our findings provide the proof of concept that Cyr61 is a key promoter of breast cancer tumorigenicity. It should be considered as a potential target for developing therapies to breast cancers patients that overexpress Cyr61. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1846. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-1846