Citations

Abstract There are limited prospective data on whether established risk factors modify breast cancer risk in women with pathogenic variants (PV) in BRCA1/2 and virtually no risk modification data for ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2. We conducted a nested case–control study in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), randomly selecting women with and without breast cancer for DNA sequencing. We evaluated breast cancer odds associated with obesity, family cancer history, smoking, alcohol, parity, breastfeeding, oophorectomy, tubal ligation, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) with estrogen and progestin or estrogen only in PV carriers and noncarriers. In exploratory analyses, we grouped genes by established predisposition for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ATM and CHEK2) or ER-negative (BRCA1 and PALB2) disease. Multivariable models with interaction terms were used to assess differential risk modification by PVs. Among 12,957 WHI participants, 287 carried PVs. Breastfeeding was modestly associated with reduced risk for PALB2 [OR = 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00–0.92; P value = 0.042]. With one-sided 95% CI, power was sufficient to exclude OR ≥2.0 with obesity for ATM and BRCA2; smoking and alcohol for CHEK2; no breastfeeding for ATM; no oophorectomy for BRCA2 and CHEK2; no tubal ligation for CHEK2; and neighborhood socioeconomic status for all genes. Estrogen + progestin MHT was modestly associated with increased risk for ER-positive PVs (OR = 7.31; 95% CI, 1.14–64.20; P = 0.036). PVs did not modify risk (interaction P ≥ 0.05). BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 PV carriers do not have breast cancer OR ≥2.0 with many established risk factors. However, MHT warrants additional study in PV carriers. Significance: There is limited information on whether established risk factors increase breast cancer risk from PVs. In the WHI, PV carriers had no substantial (≥2-fold) increase with most risk factors, except potentially MHT in ATM or CHEK2 carriers. The results may inform counseling and research on MHT.

Abstract Background In 2021, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation established the Multi‐Disciplinary Post‐Acute Sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Collaborative to provide guidance from established Long COVID clinics for the evaluation and management of Long COVID. The collaborative previously published eight Long COVID consensus guidance statements using a primarily symptom‐based approach. However, Long COVID symptoms most often do not occur in isolation. Aims This compendium aims to equip clinicians with an efficient, up‐to‐date clinical resource for evaluating and managing adults experiencing Long COVID symptoms. The primary intended audience includes physiatrists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who provide first‐line assessment and management of Long COVID symptoms, especially in settings where subspecialty care is not readily available. This compendium provides a holistic framework for assessment and management, symptom‐specific considerations, and updates on prevalence, health equity, disability considerations, pathophysiology, and emerging evidence regarding treatments under investigation. Because Long COVID closely resembles other infection‐associated chronic conditions (IACCs) such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, the guidance in this compendium may also be helpful for clinicians managing these related conditions. Methods Guidance in this compendium was developed by the collaborative's established modified Delphi approach. The collaborative is a multidisciplinary group whose members include physiatrists, primary care physicians, pulmonologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, patients, and government representatives. Over 40 Long COVID centers are represented in the collaborative. Results Long COVID is defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine as “an IACC that occurs after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” The current global prevalence of Long COVID is estimated to be 6%. Higher prevalence has been identified among female gender, certain racial and ethnic groups, and individuals who live in nonurban areas. However, anyone can develop Long COVID after being infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Long COVID can present as a wide variety of symptom clusters. The most common symptoms include exaggerated fatigue and diminished energy windows, postexertional malaise (PEM)/postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), cognitive impairment (brain fog), dysautonomia, pain/myalgias, and smell and taste alterations. Holistic assessment should include a traditional history, physical examination, and additional diagnostic testing, as indicated. A positive COVID‐19 test during acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is not required to diagnose Long COVID, and currently, there is no single laboratory finding that is definitively diagnostic for confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of Long COVID. A basic laboratory assessment is recommended for all patients with possible Long COVID, and consideration for additional labs and diagnostic procedures is guided by the patient's specific symptoms. Current management strategies focus on symptom‐based supportive care. Critical considerations include energy conservation strategies and addressing comorbidities and modifiable risk factors. Additionally, (1) it is essential to validate the patient's experience and provide reassurance that their symptoms are being taken seriously because many patients have had their symptoms dismissed by loved ones and clinicians; (2) physical activity recommendations must be carefully tailored to the patient's current activity tolerance because overly intense activity can trigger PEM/PESE and worsened muscle damage; and (3) treatment recommendations should be delivered with humility because there are many persistent unknowns related to Long COVID. To date, there are limited data to guide medication management specifically in the context of Long COVID. As such, medication use generally follows standard practice regarding indications and dosing, with extra attention to prioritize (1) patient preference via shared decision‐making and (2) cautious use of medications that may improve some symptoms (eg, cognitive/attention impairment) but may worsen other symptoms (eg, PEM/PESE). Numerous clinical trials are investigating additional treatments. The return‐to‐work process for individuals with Long COVID can be challenging because symptoms can fluctuate, vary in nature, affect multiple functional areas (eg, physical and cognitive), and often manifest as an “invisible disability” that may not be readily acknowledged by employers or coworkers. Clinicians can help patients return to work by identifying suitable workplace accommodations and resources, providing necessary documentation, and recommending occupational or vocational therapy when needed. If these efforts are unsuccessful and work significantly worsens Long COVID symptoms or impedes recovery, applying for disability may be warranted. Long COVID is recognized as a potential disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conclusion To contribute to the overall health and well‐being for all patients, Long COVID care should be delivered in a holistic manner that acknowledges challenges faced by the patient and uncertainties in the field. For more detailed information on assessment and management of specific Long COVID symptoms, readers can reference the collaborative's symptom‐specific consensus guidance statements.

Breast and ovarian cancer represent the most common and lethal cancers in women. Despite chemotherapy and targeted agents, recurrence is frequent and outcomes for patients with advanced disease are dismal, underscoring the need for novel therapeutic strategies. Using an unbiased approach with DepMap CRISPR screens across more than 1000 cancer cell lines, we identified six genes (CTPS1, RHOA, PRKRA, RAD9A, HUS1, and RAD1) that were essential for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells, but not ERα+ breast cancer cells, that were also associated with poor outcomes. Validation of these effects by siRNA knockdown studies revealed that suppression of CTPS1 elicited the most potent inhibitory effects, characterized by S phase cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Similar effects were also found in ovarian cancer cells which share many molecular features. CTPS1, along with CTPS2, is responsible for enzymatic conversion of UTP to CTP, an essential nucleoside triphosphate required for multiple cellular processes including DNA/RNA synthesis, phospholipid synthesis and glycosylation. CTPS1 was found to be highly expressed in tumor tissues, for both breast and ovarian cancer. RT-PCR assessment of CTPS1 expression in a panel of over 40 breast and ovarian cancer lines confirmed variable, but elevated expression relative to normal models. Notably, chemotherapy-resistant and PARP inhibitor (PARPi)-resistant models exhibited the highest levels of CTPS1 expression among all cells analyzed. In partnership with Step Pharma, which has developed a first-in-class highly selective CTPS1 inhibitor (STP938), we have demonstrated that STP938 elicits potent anti-proliferative effects at nM concentrations across many cell line and patient derived models, both in 2D and 3D culture systems. Furthermore, STP938 exhibited strong anti-cancer activity in chemotherapy- and PARPi-resistant ovarian cancer models, both as a monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care treatments. RNA-seq analysis in cell models following STP938 treatment or CTPS1 knockdown/knockout showed significant dysregulation of DNA replication and cell cycle related genes, suggesting potential synergy with drugs targeting replication stress or DNA damage response pathways. Single-cell sequencing further revealed specific cell-cell interactions/cross talk/pathways that are disrupted by STP938 in vivo using ovarian cancer patient-derived xenograft. The first-in-human clinical trial for STP938 began in 2022 for relapsed/refractory B- and T-cell lymphomas (NCT05463263). In August 2024, a second phase I trial opened for advanced solid tumors, including an expansion cohort for CTPS2-null ovarian cancer (NCT06297525) at Mayo Clinic. These laboratory discoveries, and ongoing clinical studies, are expected to pave the way for a broader uptake of this novel therapeutic approach aimed at improving outcomes in patients with highly aggressive forms of these diseases. Citation Format: Xiyin Wang, Michael Emch, Lauren Voll, Rebecca Epp, Esther Rodman, Noa Odell, Nicole Pearson, Xiaonan Hou, Matthew Goetz, Scott Kaufmann, John Weroha, Philip Beer, John Hawse. Exploiting CTPS1 dependency for the treatment of breast and ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 6388.

Abstract Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer diagnosed in American women. The majority of breast cancers express estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). However, 15-20% lack expression of all three and are called triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC accounts for a disproportionately large amount of morbidity and mortality due to its aggressive nature and the paucity of effective adjuvant maintenance therapy, driving an urgent need for novel therapeutics. Z-endoxifen (ENDX) is a potent tamoxifen metabolite that dually targets ERα and protein kinase C beta I (PKCβI). We recently described next-generation molecules, the first-in-class endoxifen-PROTAC (ENDX-PROTAC) compounds which incorporate ENDX as the warhead and cereblon (CRBN) as the E3 ubiquitin ligase recruitment moiety (Jayaraman 2024, SABCS). We used the PRISM screen of over 900 cancer cell lines to determine that ENDX-PROTACs have broad antitumor activity in both TNBC and ER+ breast cancer in addition to, leukemia, pancreatic, lymphoma, lung, melanoma, and ovarian cancer cells, among others. ENDX-PROTACs primarily target a key translation termination factor, G to S phase transition 1 (GSPT1). Here, we demonstrate for the first time that these compounds also cause marked DNA damage. The lead compounds of this series, EPrC-007 and EPrC-009 demonstrated potent anti-proliferative effects in MDA-MB-231, BT549, and MDA-MB-436 TNBC cell lines. EPrC-007 induced substantial DNA double strand breaks in MDA-MB-231 cells as assessed by γ-H2AX Western blotting. Interrogation of DNA repair pathways revealed activation of ATM/CHK2 and downregulation of ATR/CHK1, suggesting inhibition of DNA repair as a potential mechanism. Additionally, EPrC-007 also induced γ-H2AX foci in MDA-MB-231 and BT549 cells, but not in the MCF10A normal breast tissue cell line, suggesting selective anti-tumor activity. Since we suspect that EPrC-007 blocks DNA repair machinery, we next sought to determine if these molecules would synergize with DNA damaging agents or other DNA repair inhibitors. Promisingly, EPrC-007 demonstrated remarkable synergy with olaparib (poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor), hydroxyurea (ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor), and cisplatin (direct DNA damaging agent), but not camptothecin (topoisomerase I inhibitor). Importantly, only olaparib co-treatment demonstrated synergy in the PARP- and PROTAC-resistant HCC1143 TNBC cell line. Furthermore, the combination of EPrC-007 with olaparib induced markedly more γ-H2AX foci than either agent alone, confirming synergy at the DNA damage level. Taken together, our studies demonstrate the remarkable potential of ENDX-PROTACs in the single-agent setting as well as in combination with PARP inhibitors. Citation Format: Aamod S. Dekhne, Swaathi Jayaraman, Lucy Rai Thulung, Becky Bruinsma, Baustin M. Welch, Samuel Wyatt, Esther P. Rodman, Sayantani Bhattacharya, Thomas R. Caulfield, John R. Hawse, Matthew J. Schellenberg, Matthew P. Goetz. Novel endoxifen-based proteolysis targeting chimera (PROTAC) small molecules synergize with olaparib and exhibit potent antitumor activity in triple negative breast cancer through induction of DNA damage [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 1666.

Abstract Introduction: Breast cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified over 200 susceptibility loci, many replicated in diverse populations. However, cross-ancestry evaluation of breast cancer genetic architecture remains limited. We examined breast cancer genetic architecture using GWAS summary results from European (EUR; cases (ca) = 188,474, controls (co) = 96,201), East Asian (EAS; ca = 20,393, co = 86,329), African American (AA; ca = 9,235, co = 10,184), and US Hispanic/Latina and Latin American (H/L; ca = 2,396, co =7,468) studies. Methods: GWAS results were derived from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, the African Ancestry Breast Cancer Genetics Consortium (AABCG), Biobank Japan, and a meta-analysis of five studies of H/L women with breast cancer. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) scores were generated for EUR, EAS, and AMR using the 1000 Genomes Project, while AA LD scores were derived from a subset of AABCG controls. Heritability was estimated for each ancestry group using LD score regression. Genetic correlations between populations were assessed via Popcorn. Polygenicity was analyzed using GENESIS; however, due to the limited sample size in the H/L studies, these estimates were restricted to AA, EAS, and EUR. Enrichment of heritability across regulatory elements was evaluated using stratified LD score regression across all populations. Results: The logit-scale heritability and corresponding standard error (SE) were 0.466 (0.066) for EAS, 0.501 (0.050) for EUR, 0.588 (0.360) for H/L, and 0.614 (0.095) for AA. The estimated number of independent susceptibility loci was 4,446 for EAS, 5,235 for EUR, and 8,308 for AA. Using a clumping and thresholding approach, an optimal set of common variants were projected to explain 38.6% (EUR), 39.4% (EAS), and 26.2% (AA) of genetic variance for samples of 100,000 cases and 100,000 controls with AUCs from corresponding estimated polygenic risk scores (PRSs) of 0.621 (EUR), 0.634 (EAS), and 0.611 (AA). Genetic correlations were strongest between EUR and EAS (ρ = 0.79, SE = 0.08) and EUR and H/L (ρ = 0.68, SE = 0.21), and weakest between AA and EAS (ρ = 0.42, SE = 0.14) and AA and H/L (ρ = 0.26, SE = 0.24). Among 73 genomic features, we found significant (P < 0.05/73) enrichment in heritability in EUR for ‘ancient promoter’ regions, transcription factor binding sites, H3K4me3, ‘super-enhancers’, H3K4me1, H3K27ac; in EAS for ‘super-enhancers’; and in AA for H3K27ac. No genomic features were significantly enriched in H/L, likely due to limited power. Conclusion: These findings suggest a shared breast cancer genetic architecture across diverse populations, as well as the potential for a similar level of breast cancer risk stratification by PRS in these populations. Expanding GWAS in underrepresented populations is essential to improve genetic risk predictions and foster equitable cancer prevention. Citation Format: James L. Li, Maria Zanti, Jacob Williams, Om Jahagirdar, Guochong Jia, Qiang Hu, Jean-Tristan Brandenburg, Li Yan, Weang-Kee Ho, Jingmei Li, José P. Miranda, Devika Godbole, Julie-Alexia Dias, Leila Dorling, Wenlong C. Chen, Nicholas Boddicker, Ying Wang, Alicia Martin, Martin J. Zhang, Yan Zhang, Joe Dennis, Esther M. John, Gabriela Torres-Mejia, Larry Kushi, Jeffrey Weitzel, Susan L. Neuhausen, Luis Carvajal-Carmona, Christopher Haiman, Elad Ziv, Laura Fejerman, Wei Zheng, Dezheng Huo, Douglas Easton, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Peter Kraft, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Wendy Wong, Kyriaki Michailidou, Qianqian Zhu, Diptavo Dutta, Thomas U. Ahearn, Haoyu Zhang. Genetic architecture of breast cancer across diverse populations: Assessing heritability, genetic correlation, and polygenicity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 2282.

Abstract Background: Although colorectal cancer survival rates are improving, the risk of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) among Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (ANHPI) ethnic groups is poorly understood. This study aims to identify high-risk groups and quantify the risk across different periods. Methods: Using the SEER–Medicare database, colorectal cancer survivors who were ANHPI were matched to non-Hispanic White (NHW) survivors at a ratio of 1:3. Multivariable Cox regression models computed HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident T2D. Results: The study included 6,463 NHW and 2,901 ANHPI colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2017. Among them, 715 NHW and 484 ANHPI developed T2D during 39,097 and 10,769 person-years of follow-up, respectively. ANHPI colorectal cancer survivors had an elevated T2D risk compared with NHW across all follow-up periods (HRoverall: 1.84, 95% CI, 1.51–2.25; HR1–5 years: 1.83, 95% CI, 1.45–2.30). Southeast and East Asians demonstrated the highest T2D risks. Colon cancer was linked to early postdiagnosis T2D risk, whereas rectal cancer was associated with later risk. No significant association was observed for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Conclusions: ANHPI colorectal cancer survivors face a greater risk of T2D, particularly among Southeast and East Asians. These findings highlight the need for evidence-based survivorship strategies to prevent T2D and reduce ethnic disparities. Impact: This is the first study to examine T2D risk among ANHPI colorectal cancer survivors, providing critical insights to inform tailored diabetes prevention and survivorship care.

Background/Purpose APS ACTION Registry was created to study the natural course of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) over 10 years in persistently antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) positive patients with or without systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Our primary objective was to compare the characteristics of aPL-positive patients with or without thrombocytopenia (TP) and/or autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA). Methods The registry inclusion criteria are positive aPL based on the Revised Sapporo APS Classification Criteria, tested at least twice within 1 year prior to enrollment. For the primary comparison of demographic, clinical, and serologic characteristics in this retrospective study, we divided patients into two groups: TP/AIHA ever and never. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count of <100,000 x 10 9 /L tested twice at least 12 weeks apart, and AIHA was defined as anemia with hemolysis and a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT). For the secondary analysis, we compared patients with TP versus AIHA, and the immunosuppressive use stratified by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification. Results As of April 2022, of 1,039 patients (primary aPL/APS: 618 [59%]; SLE classification: 334 [31%]) included in the registry, 228 (22%) had baseline (historical or current) TP and/or AIHA (TP only: 176 [17%]; AIHA only: 35 [3%], and both: 17 [2%]). Thrombocytopenia and/or AIHA was significantly associated with Asian race, SLE classification, cardiac valve disease, catastrophic/microvascular APS, triple aPL (lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibody, and anti-β 2 -glycoprotein-I antibody) positivity, and SLE-related serologic and inflammatory markers. When 101/618 (16%) primary aPL/APS patients and 101/334 (34%) SLE patients with TP and/or AIHA were compared, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil were more commonly reported in lupus patients, however corticosteroid, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab use were similar between groups. Conclusion In our large multi-center international cohort of persistently aPL-positive patients, approximately one-fifth had active or historical TP and/or AIHA at registry entry; half of these patients had additional SLE. Cardiac valve disease, catastrophic/microvascular APS, and triple aPL-positivity were aPL-related clinical and laboratory manifestations associated with TP and/or AIHA, suggesting a more severe APS clinical phenotype in aPL-patients with TP and/or AIHA.

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to establish the clinical utility of a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-supported, model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) approach (precision-guided dosing [PGD]) by assessing the impact of pharmacokinetic (clearance [CL]) and clinical laboratory parameters on adalimumab (ADA) dosage adjustments during maintenance therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: In the EMPOWER study, blood was collected at any time post-ADA injection. Pharmacokinetic (PK) testing was conducted in an accredited lab. Inputs for the PGD test included ADA concentrations, antibodies to ADA, albumin levels, and the current dosing regimen. CL was calculated using nonlinear mixed-effect models. Results were reported to health care providers (HCPs) within 3 days. HCPs’ treatment decisions were recorded and classified as treatment reduction, continuation, intensification, or ADA discontinuation. The physician global assessment (PGA) of disease activity was collected. Relationships between drug concentrations, CL, disease activity, and physician decision-making were assessed using logistic regression. Results: A total of 213 cases were assessed by 21 HCPs. ADA treatment was intensified in 24% and discontinued in 13% of cases. An ADA concentration ≤ 10 μg/mL was associated with a 23.7-fold and 3.0-fold higher likelihood of therapy intensification and PGA > 0, respectively, compared to concentrations > 10 μg/mL. An ADA concentration < 5 μg/mL was associated with a 3.3-fold higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation. CL ≥ 0.318 L/day was associated with a 10.4-fold higher likelihood of therapy intensification. Higher CL (>0.8 L/day) was associated with a 3.5-fold and 4.2-fold higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation and PGA > 0, respectively. Conclusions: PGD enables earlier and precise optimization of ADA dosing by predicting trough levels at any time during the therapy cycle. Optimized dosing to achieve target ADA concentrations and low clearance is crucial to mitigate therapy discontinuation and active disease in IBD patients.

Abstract Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) phosphorylates a subset of Rab GTPases that regulate receptor trafficking; activating mutations in LRRK2 are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Rab phosphorylation is a transient event that can be reversed by phosphatases, including PPM1H, that acts on phosphoRab8A and phosphoRab10. Here we report a phosphatome-wide siRNA screen that identified PPM1M as a phosphoRab12-preferring phosphatase that also acts on phosphoRab8A and phosphoRab10. Upon knockout from cells or mice, PPM1M displays selectivity for phosphoRab12. As shown previously for mice harboring LRRK2 pathway mutations, knockout of Ppm1m leads to primary cilia loss in striatal cholinergic interneurons. We have also identified a rare PPM1M mutation in patients with Parkinson’s disease that is catalytically inactive when tested in vitro and in cells. These findings identify PPM1M as a key player in the LRRK2 signaling pathway and provide a new therapeutic target for the possible benefit of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Teaser Parkinson’s linked Rab phosphorylation is reversed by PPM1M; the inactive D440N variant is implicated in rare patient cases.