Garber, Judy E.

Abstract Given the frequent and largely incurable occurrence of multiple myeloma, identification of germline genetic mutations that predispose cells to multiple myeloma may provide insight into disease etiology and the developmental mechanisms of its cell of origin, the plasma cell (PC). Here, we identified familial and early-onset multiple myeloma kindreds with truncating mutations in lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1/KDM1A), an epigenetic transcriptional repressor that primarily demethylates histone H3 on lysine 4 and regulates hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal. In addition, we found higher rates of germline truncating and predicted deleterious missense KDM1A mutations in patients with multiple myeloma unselected for family history compared with controls. Both monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and multiple myeloma cells have significantly lower KDM1A transcript levels compared with normal PCs. Transcriptome analysis of multiple myeloma cells from KDM1A mutation carriers shows enrichment of pathways and MYC target genes previously associated with myeloma pathogenesis. In mice, antigen challenge followed by pharmacologic inhibition of KDM1A promoted PC expansion, enhanced secondary immune response, elicited appearance of serum paraprotein, and mediated upregulation of MYC transcriptional targets. These changes are consistent with the development of MGUS. Collectively, our findings show that KDM1A is the first autosomal-dominant multiple myeloma germline predisposition gene providing new insights into its mechanistic roles as a tumor suppressor during post-germinal center B-cell differentiation. Significance: KDM1A is the first germline autosomal dominant predisposition gene identified in multiple myeloma and provides new insights into multiple myeloma etiology and the mechanistic role of KDM1A as a tumor suppressor during post-germinal center B-cell differentiation. Cancer Res; 78(10); 2747–59. ©2018 AACR.

Abstract This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.

Abstract A better understanding of gene-specific risks for development of breast cancer will lead to improved screening, prevention, and therapeutic strategies for individuals identified to carry germline mutations. We performed targeted massively-parallel sequencing to identify mutations and large genomic rearrangements in 26 known or proposed breast cancer susceptibility genes in 2134 BRCA-negative women with familial breast cancer (FBC). A case-control analysis was performed comparing the frequency of internally classified mutations identified in FBC cases to that in non-Finnish European controls from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) excluding samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Including large genomic rearrangements, mutations were identified in 8.2% of FBC cases compared to 6.2% of ExAC controls, including mutations in high-penetrance genes (0.6% in cases vs. 0.1% in controls), moderate-penetrance genes (3.7% vs 1.7%), and seven cases with two mutations (0.3%). The remainder of FBC cases and ExAC controls had mutations in proposed breast cancer genes (1.6% of cases vs 2.4% of controls), Lynch syndrome genes (0.5% vs. 0.5%) or were heterozygous MUTYH carriers (1.5% vs. 1.5%). Case-control analysis demonstrated significant associations with FBC for ATM, PALB2, and TP53 mutations (OR>3.0, p<10-4), BARD1 mutations (OR=3.2, p=0.012), and CHEK2 truncating mutations (OR=1.6, p=0.041). Our results therefore demonstrate that only approximately 4% of BRCA1/2 negative FBC patients have mutations in genes definitively associated with breast cancer at this time. Large case-control studies are needed to fully evaluate the breast cancer risks associated with moderate penetrance and proposed breast cancer susceptibility genes. Citation Format: Kara N. Maxwell, Thomas Paul Slavin, Jenna M. Lilyquist, Joseph Vijai, Susan L. Neuhausen, Steven N. Hart, Vignesh Ravichandran, Tinu Thomas, Ann Maria, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Raymond Moore, Chunling Hu, Brad Wubbenhorst, Brandon M. Wenz, Kurt D'Andrea, Susan M. Domchek, Mark E. Robson, Paulo Peterlongo, Paolo Radice, James M. Ford, Judy E. Garber, Csilla Szabo, Kenneth Offit, Katherine L. Nathanson, Fergus J. Couch, Jeffrey N. Weitzel. Risks of familial breast cancer associated with known and proposed breast cancer susceptibility genes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4265. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-4265

Purpose Massively parallel sequencing allows simultaneous testing of multiple genes associated with cancer susceptibility. Guidelines are available for variant classification; however, interpretation of these guidelines by laboratories and providers may differ and lead to conflicting reporting and, potentially, to inappropriate medical management. We describe conflicting variant interpretations between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–approved commercial clinical laboratories, as reported to the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), an online genetic registry. Methods Clinical data and genetic testing results were gathered from 1,191 individuals tested for inherited cancer susceptibility and self-enrolled in PROMPT between September 2014 and October 2015. Overall, 518 participants (603 genetic variants) had a result interpreted by more than one laboratory, including at least one submitted to ClinVar, and these were used as the final cohort for the current analysis. Results Of the 603 variants, 221 (37%) were classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 191 (32%) as pathogenic, and 34 (6%) as benign. The interpretation differed among reporting laboratories for 155 (26%). Conflicting interpretations were most frequently reported for CHEK2 and ATM, followed by RAD51C, PALB2, BARD1, NBN, and BRIP1. Among all participants, 56 of 518 (11%) had a variant with conflicting interpretations ranging from pathogenic/likely pathogenic to VUS, a discrepancy that may alter medical management. Conclusions Conflicting interpretation of genetic findings from multiplex panel testing used in clinical practice is frequent and may have implications for medical management decisions.

Abstract Background: Guidelines recommend germline mutation testing of breast cancer predisposition genes in triple negative (TN) breast cancer cases with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer or when diagnosed under age 60. However, the prevalence of mutations in these genes among TN cases unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer is not known. Methods: To assess the frequency of mutations in 16 predisposition genes in TN cases we screened a large cohort of TN patients (n=1824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer from 12 centers and 824 study matched unaffected controls for mutations using a panel-based sequencing approach. Results: Deleterious mutations were identified in 15% of TN patients: 8.5% had BRCA1, 2.7% had BRCA2, and 3.6% had mutations in 12 other genes. Mutations in non-BRCA1/2 genes encoding proteins implicated in homologous recombination repair of DNA double strand breaks were detected at the same frequency as in breast cancer families. TN cases with mutations had high-grade tumors and were diagnosed at an earlier age than non-mutated cases. However, 10% of TN cases diagnosed at ≥60 years and 5% with no family history of cancer were also found to carry mutations. Inactivating mutations in non-BRCA1/2 predisposition genes were associated with moderate to high risks of TN breast cancer. Conclusions: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines support clinical genetic testing of breast cancer predisposition genes in 95% of TN breast cancer patients carrying mutations in susceptibility genes. In contrast, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines in the U.K. do not support genetic testing of a substantial proportion of TN patients with predisposing alleles. Frequency tables for inherited mutations in known predisposition genes based on age of diagnosis and family history of cancer will allow for selection of TN patients most likely to carry mutations in the predisposition genes. Citation Format: Fergus J Couch, Steven N Hart, Priyanka Sharma, Amanda Ewart Toland, Penelope Miron, Janet E Olson, Andrew Godwin, Vernon S Pankratz, Curtis Olswold, Seth Slettedahl, Lucia Guidugli, Matthias W Beckmann, Brigitte Rack, Arif B Ekici, Irene Konstantopoulou, Florentia Fostira, George Fountzilas, Liisa M Pelttari, Song Yao, Judy Garber, Angela Cox, Hiltrud Brauch, Christine Ambrosone, Heli Nevanlinna, Drakoulis Yannoukakos, Susan L Slager, Celine M Vachon, Diana M Eccles, Peter A Fasching. Triple-negative breast cancer: Frequency of inherited mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes [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 P4-12-03.

Purpose Recent advances in DNA sequencing have led to the development of breast cancer susceptibility gene panels for germline genetic testing of patients. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 17 predisposition genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer to determine the utility of germline genetic testing for those with TNBC. Patients and Methods Patients with TNBC (N = 1,824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through 12 studies, and germline DNA was sequenced to identify mutations. Results Deleterious mutations were identified in 14.6% of all patients. Of these, 11.2% had mutations in the BRCA1 (8.5%) and BRCA2 (2.7%) genes. Deleterious mutations in 15 other predisposition genes were detected in 3.7% of patients, with the majority observed in genes involved in homologous recombination, including PALB2 (1.2%) and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C, and BRIP1 (0.3% to 0.5%). Patients with TNBC with mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age (P < .001) and had higher-grade tumors (P = .01) than those without mutations. Conclusion Deleterious mutations in predisposition genes are present at high frequency in patients with TNBC unselected for family history of cancer. Mutation prevalence estimates suggest that patients with TNBC, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer, should be considered for germline genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although mutations in other predisposition genes are observed among patients with TNBC, better cancer risk estimates are needed before these mutations are used for clinical risk assessment in relatives.