Citations

Abstract Background Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC‐specific survival (BCSS) compared to non‐carriers. Aim To assessed the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. Methods Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with a first primary invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow‐up was 9.1 years. Differential associations with treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi‐state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. Results There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status. The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR (95% CI): 0.66 (0.55–0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi‐state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non‐carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR (95% CI): 1.30 (1.09–1.56)]. Conclusion Systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk.

Abstract Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC-specific survival (BCSS) compared to non-carriers. We aimed to assess the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow-up was 9.1 years. Differential associations of treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi-state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR(95%CI): 0.66 (0.55–0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi-state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non-carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR(95%CI) :1.30 (1.09–1.56)]. In conclusion, systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk. (Main MS: 3201 words)

PURPOSE Among patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the frequency of germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes and the clinical relevance of these mutations are unclear. In this study, a prospective cohort of patients with mBC was used to determine mutation rates for breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with mutations, and to assess the influence of mutations on patient outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS Germline DNA from 2,595 patients with mBC enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry was evaluated for mutations in cancer predisposition genes. The frequencies of mutations in known BC predisposition genes were compared with results from a prospective registry of patients with nonmetastatic BC sequenced using the same QIAseq method and with public reference controls. Associations between mutation status and tumor characteristics, progression-free survival, and overall survival were assessed. RESULTS Germline mutations in 12 established BC predisposition genes (including BRCA1 and BRCA2) were detected in 271 (10.4%) patients. A mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was seen in 129 patients (5.0%). BRCA1 mutation carriers had a higher proportion of brain metastasis (27.1%) compared with nonmutation carriers (12.8%). Mutations were significantly enriched in PRAEGNANT patients with mBC compared with patients with nonmetastatic BC (10.4% v 6.6%, P < .01). Mutations did not significantly modify progression-free survival or overall survival for patients with mBC. CONCLUSION Multigene panel testing may be considered in all patients with mBC because of the high frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other BC predisposition genes. Although the prognosis of mutation carriers and nonmutation carriers with mBC was similar, differences observed in tumor characteristics have implications for treatment and for future studies of targeted therapies.

1048 Background: Germline BRCA1/2 ( gBRCA) mutations (mt) are some of the few actionable alterations in mBC patients. The PARP inhibitors olaparib/talazoparib are more effective than chemotherapy (ctx) in patients with a gBRCAmt and HER2 negative(-) mBC. In mBC patients the TNT-study suggested a better progression-free survival (PFS) for g BRCA-mt compared to patients with a gBRCA1/2 wildtype (wt) when treated with platinum and not with a taxane. Otherwise little is known about the prognostic effect of g BRCA1/2mt in mBC patients. Methods: PRAEGNANT (NCT02338167) is a prospective mBC registry with a focus on molecular biomarkers. Patients were eligible for this analysis if their mBC was HER2- and treated with ctx for the first time (referred to as first-line ctx). Hormone receptor (HR) positive patients had to have all hormone therapies exhausted. Mutation frequencies and their association with patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression models were built with commonly established prognostic factors and g BRCA mutation status as predictors of PFS and overall survival (OS) from first-line ctx. Results: Out of 2932 PRAEGNANT patients, 576 were HER2- and received first-line ctx. Of those 529 patients with g BRCA genotype results and follow up information could be analyzed. 24 patients (4.5%) had a g BRCAmt (11 BRCA1, 13 BRCA2). Mutation rate in HR positive patients was 3.9% (17/432) and 7.2% (7/97) in HR negative patients. Most patients received ctx either as the first treatment in the metastatic setting or after one line of hormone therapy (n=382; 72.2%). Multivariable Cox regression models showed an adjusted hazard ratio for gBRCAmt vs. gBRCAwt patients of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.43-1.15) for PFS and of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.18-0.93) for OS. Most frequent ctx treatments were taxane (52%) or capecitabine based (21%). Additionally, the prevalence of somatic BRCA1/2 mutations in this population will be presented. Conclusions: In this HER2- mBC population under ctx g BRCA mutation rates were within the expected range of about 5%. Within the analyzed population patients with a g BRCA mutation seemed to have a better OS than patients without a mutation. PFS results pointed in the same direction without statistical significance. However, with only 24 mutations replication of these results in additional cohorts is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02338167.

AbstractLarge-scale genotyping studies have identified over 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk. However, knowledge regarding genetic risk factors associated with the prognosis is limited. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the prognostic effect of nine known breast cancer risk SNPs. BC patients (n = 1687) randomly sampled in an adjuvant, randomized phase III trial (SUCCESS A study) were genotyped for nine BC risk SNPs: rs17468277(CASP8), rs2981582(FGFR2), rs13281615(8q24), rs3817198(LSP1), rs889312(MAP3K1), rs3803662(TOX3), rs13387042(2q35), rs4973768(SLC4A7), rs6504950(COX11). Cox proportional hazards models were used to test the SNPsʼ association with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Additional analyses were carried out for molecular subgroups. rs3817198 in LSP1 (lymphocyte-specific protein 1) was the only SNP that significantly influenced OS (p = 0.01) and PFS (p < 0.01) in the likelihood ratio test comparing the genetic survival model with the clinical survival model. In the molecular subgroups, triple-negative patients with two minor alleles in rs3817198 had a much better prognosis relative to OS (adjusted HR 0.03; 95% CI 0.002 – 0.279) and PFS (HR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02 – 0.36) than patients with the common alleles. The same effect on PFS was shown for patients with luminal A tumors (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.05 – 0.84), whereas patients with luminal B tumors had a poorer PFS with two minor alleles (HR 2.13; 95% CI 1.02 – 4.40). The variant in rs3817198 has a prognostic effect particularly in the subgroup of patients with triple-negative BC, suggesting a possible link with immunomodulation and BC.

Although mammography screening programs do not include ultrasound examinations, some diagnostic units do provide women with both mammography and ultrasonography. This article is concerned with estimating the risk of a breast cancer patient diagnosed in a hospital‐based mammography unit having a tumor that is visible on ultrasound but not on mammography. A total of 1,399 women with invasive breast cancer from a hospital‐based diagnostic mammography unit were included in this retrospective study. For inclusion, mammograms from the time of the primary diagnosis had to be available for computer‐assisted assessment of percentage mammographic density (PMD), as well as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) assessment of mammography. In addition, ultrasound findings were available for the complete cohort as part of routine diagnostic procedures, regardless of any patient or imaging characteristics. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of mammography failure, defined as BIRADS assessment 1 or 2. The probability that the visibility of a tumor might be masked at diagnosis was estimated using a regression model with the identified predictors. Tumors were only visible on ultrasound in 107 cases (7.6%). PMD was the strongest predictor for mammography failure, but age, body mass index and previous breast surgery also influenced the risk, independently of the PMD. Risk probabilities ranged from 1% for a defined low‐risk group up to 40% for a high‐risk group. These findings might help identify women who should be offered ultrasound examinations in addition to mammography.