Ruddy, Kathryn J.

Abstract Background: Young women with breast cancer (BC) often receive aggressive local therapy and are more likely to undergo (bilateral) mastectomy and receive postmastectomy radiation (RT) than older women. Our previous work suggested better quality of life (QOL) outcomes among women undergoing breast conserving therapy (BCT) vs. mastectomy, even with reconstruction (recon), although limited data was available regarding recon. In the current analysis, we sought to understand the impact of recon, accounting for RT, on long-term satisfaction and QOL. Methods: Between 10/2016-11/2017, we administered the BREAST-Q, a validated patient-reported outcomes measure designed to evaluate satisfaction and QOL after breast cancer surgery and recon, to 743 women in the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study, a multi-site prospective cohort that enrolled women diagnosed (dx’d) at age < 40 from 2006-2016. Demographic and treatment information was obtained by surveys and chart review. Recon was defined as autologous, implant or complex (combination of autologous and implant). Mean BREAST-Q scores for each domain (breast satisfaction, physical, psychosocial, and sexual) were compared by recon types and stratified by receipt of RT; higher BREAST-Q scores (range: 0-100) indicate better QOL. Linear regression was used to identify predictors of BREAST-Q scores. Results: 584 women with Stage 0-3 BC completed the Breast-Q at a median of 5.7 [range 2-10] years from dx), 357 (61%) had mastectomy and recon and were included in the analytic sample. Median age at dx was 36 years; 85% had stage 0, 1 or 2 disease; 41% received RT and 76% underwent bilateral mastectomy. 90.5% underwent immediate recon; of which 65.5% were tissue expander placement. Definitive recon included autologous tissue in 16%; implants in 81% and complex recon in 3%. Mean BREAST-Q breast satisfaction, psychosocial, and physical well-being scores differed based on recon type accounting for RT (Table 1). Significantly lower scores for breast satisfaction were seen in women having implant +RT. Scores were not impacted by bilateral procedure, timing of recon, use of tissue expander, extent of axillary surgery, cancer stage or other treatment factors. In multivariate analyses, receipt of RT, lymphedema and implant-based recon were associated with lower breast satisfaction scores. Physical well-being scores were lower for those with complex recon, for non-White women, for women who reported being financially uncomfortable, for those with lymphedema, and for those <5 years from surgery. Psychosocial well-being scores were lower for women who received RT, had BMI >25, and for those who reported being financially uncomfortable. Sexual well-being scores were lower for women with a BMI >25 and for those who reported being financially uncomfortable. Conclusion Type of recon and receipt of radiation among young survivors who undergo mastectomy and recon for early breast cancer appears to have a differential impact on satisfaction and QOL. Our finding of lower breast satisfaction among young women who received RT, particularly after implant recon, underscores the importance of counseling regarding surgical options, especially for women who may receive RT after mastectomy and who are candidates for BCT. Table 1. Unadjusted BREAST-Q scores stratified by RTBREAST-Q DomainAutologous -RT N=29Autologous +RT N=27Implant -RT N=174Implant +RT N=113Complex N=13Global p-valueSatisfaction with Breasts, mean (sd)67 (19)63 (18)64 (18)53 (18)58 (22)<0.01Physical well-being, mean (sd)81 (13)80 (14)80 (15)77 (14)67 (18)0.01Psychosocial well-being, mean (sd)71 (18)64 (18)72 (20)66 (23)62 (20)0.03Sexual well-being, mean (sd)54 (21)50 (24)52 (20)47 (22)48 (27)0.26RT= radiation Citation Format: Laura Dominici, Jiani Hu, Hee Jeong Kim, Tari King, Kathryn Ruddy, Rulla Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia Borges, Stephen Come, Ellen Warner, Julia Wong, Ann Partridge, Shoshana Rosenberg. BREAST-Q satisfaction and quality of life outcomes in young women undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-1.

Abstract Purpose: To determine the sensitivity of germline hereditary cancer genetic testing recommendations for detection of pathogenic mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes in an unselected cohort of breast cancer patients. Patients and Methods: The study population included patients enrolled in a prospective breast cancer registry after being seen at Mayo Clinic for newly diagnosed breast cancer between 2004 and 2016. All patients were subjected to germline mutation testing for 12 known breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D and TP53). Results from testing of all breast cancer patients according to American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) genetic testing recommendations and patients meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, based on age at diagnosis and personal and family history of cancer, were compared. Results: Among the 4516 patients in the cohort, the median age at diagnosis of breast cancer was 57 years, 80.5% had estrogen receptor positive tumors, and 43% had a family history of breast cancer. All patients in the cohort met ASBrS criteria for hereditary cancergenetic testing, 2050 (45.4%) met NCCN criteria, 1892 (41.9%) did not meet NCCN criteria, and 574 (12.7%) patients could not be fully evaluated for NCCN testing criteria due to missing data. The frequencies of pathogenic variants in the cohort are shown in Table 1. Patients meeting NCCN criteria were more likely to carry a pathogenic variant compared to those who did not (9.8% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001, Table 1). However, 72 (26.5%) out of the 272 patients with mutations in 12 breast cancer predisposition genes and 15 (12.4%) out of 121 with mutations in BRCA1/2 were overlooked when NCCN selection criteria alone were applied. When testing was expanded to include all patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤65 and/or meeting NCCN testing criteria, only 20 (7.4%) out of 272 mutation carriers in 12 breast cancer genes and 2 (1.6%) out of 121 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were overlooked. However, this increased the number tested to detect one mutation carrier on average from 17 to 25 for BRCA1/2 and from 9 to 12 for the 12 breast cancer predisposition genes. In total, this age cutoff led to an increase in the number of patients tested by 28% while the number of patients in the cohort that need not undergo germline genetic testing was 20%. Conclusions: Although NCCN criteria for BRCA1/2 germline genetic testing detect the majority of predisposition gene mutation carriers, a significant number of carriers are missed in an unselected cohort of breast cancer patients using these criteria. Expanding the current NCCN criteria to include all women with breast cancer diagnosed ≤ 65 years of age, will substantially improve the sensitivity of mutation testing, without the need for evaluation of all breast cancer patients. Table 1: Comparison of frequency of germline mutations between patients who met and did not meet NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing#Total, Meets ASBrS guidelines N=3942Meets NCCN guidelines, N=2050Did not meet NCCN guidelines, N=1892P-value€ NCCN vs non-NCCNPercent mutation carriers missed by NCCN criteria* BRCA1/2121 (3.1%)106 (5.2%)15 (0.8%)<0.00112.4%6 High risk genes$150 (3.8%)120 (5.8%)30 (1.6%)<0.00120.0%12 Breast cancer genes:272 (6.9%)200 (9.8%)72 (3.8%)<0.00126.5%ATM45 (1.1%)32 (1.56%)13 (0.69%)28.9%BARD16 (0.2%)5 (0.24%)1 (0.05%)16.7%BRCA158 (1.5%)53 (2.59%)5 (0.26%)8.6%BRCA263 (1.6%)53 (2.59%)10 (0.53%)15.9%CDH16 (0.2%)3 (0.15%)3 (0.16%)50.0%CHEK267 (1.7%)41 (2.00%)26 (1.36%)38.8%NF10 (0.0%)0 (0.00%)0 (0.00%)0.0%PALB216 (0.4%)7 (0.34%)9 (0.48%)56.3%PTEN1 (0.0%)1 (0.05%)0 (0.00%)0.0%RAD51C6 (0.2%)6 (0.29%)0 (0.00%)0.0%RAD51D4 (0.1%)2 (0.10%)2 (0.11%)50.0%TP537 (0.2%)3 (0.15%)4 (0.21%)57.1%#: Patients who did not meet NCCN criteria excluded from analysis$: BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN and TP53;€: Fisher exact test comparing frequency of germline mutations between those who met NCCN guidelines and those who did not;*: Denominators for percentages are the total mutation carriers in respective categories. Citation Format: Siddhartha Yadav, Chunling Hu, Steven N. Hart, Nicholas Boddicker, Eric C. Polley, Jie Na, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y. Lee, Janet E. Olson, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Fergus J. Couch. Comparison of recommendations for germline genetic testing in an unselected cohort of patients with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-01.

Abstract Background: Anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen. Combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) is guideline-recommended for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CMS’ OP-35 measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care as avoidable if involving nausea and emesis (NV) or any of 8 other toxicities. Results will be publicly reported and impact Medicare reimbursement. CMS (2017) found that 10% of >58,000 patients with avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involved NV. Because NEPA is new, insufficient real world data exist to assess its CINV resource use. CINV-related acute-care after NEPA prophylaxis in AC has been reported in a prospective clinical trial. Our aim was to compare these rates to those seen after prophylaxis with other antiemetics for AC outside of a clinical trial. Methods: Pre-specified endpoints in a prospective trial of oral or IV NEPA + DEX in AC included acute-care use (emergency [ED] visits or inpatient admissions [IP]) involving CINV, defined as emesis or rescue drug use ≤5 days after AC, and concomitant ED/IP in the same period. We also evaluated CINV-related acute care after non-NEPA prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer from 10/2012-8/2018 in IBM Explorys electronic health records. We age-matched patients 3:1 to the NEPA trial. We further adjusted the event rate to address under-reporting of a) CINV rates (vs. 49.2% for aprepitant in AC in a clinical trial [Warr 2005]) and b) acute-care use, projected at 17-50% at sites external to the dataset. To compare the resulting adjusted event rate to the NEPA study, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, using random probabilities from 5.2-8.7% for Explorys patients, and from 0-2% for NEPA patients to address potential reporting variability, despite the trial including daily patient diaries. Analysis of data was limited to the first two cycles, the median duration in the NEPA trial. Results: In the NEPA trial, 402 patients received ≥1 cycle; 391 completed two cycles. Nine patients had IP admissions; none involved CINV. Five patients had 6 total ED visits; one met criteria for involving CINV; the resulting rate of acute care rate involving CINV was 0.25 per 100 patients. For other antiemetics, 2598 patients received AC (excluding NEPA prophylaxis). Among 1206 age-matched to the NEPA trial, 15 patients had acute-care events in the first 2 cycles, (1.24 per 100 patients), an odds ratio of 1:5.1 (CI 0.7-38.5) in favor of NEPA. After adjusting via the simulation, the odds ratio was 1:8.3 (CI: 2.43-24.21) in favor of NEPA. Conclusions: Comparing CINV-related acute care seen in a large prospective trial relative to real-world evidence in patients with breast cancer treated with AC, <1% of patients receiving NEPA prophylaxis required acute care for CINV; the CINV-related acute-care risks seen with other antiemetic prophylaxis were 5 times (unadjusted) to 8 times (adjusted) the levels for NEPA. A similar comparison using only real world data should be conducted as data permit. Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rudolph M Navari, Thomas W LeBlanc, Rebecca Clark-Snow, Rita Wickham, Gary Binder, William L. Bailey, Ravi Potluri, Luke M Schmerold, Eros Papademetriou, Eric J Roeland. Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-07.

Abstract Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on a large number of SNPs associated with breast cancer have recently been made available in combination with multigene panel testing for clinical management of breast cancer risk. Breast cancer risk assessment has historically been performed using various non-genetic risk models, which predict lifetime risk of breast cancer in unaffected women based on personal and family history information. While clinical use of PRS in combination with these models continues to increase, the predictive performance of a PRS combined with clinical information in real-world patient populations has not been thoroughly investigated. Methods: We assessed a 100-SNP breast cancer PRS in combination with the Tyrer-Cuzick model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk in 5,374 Caucasian women from the case-control Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study (MCBCS), comprised of 3,373 breast cancer cases and 2,001 unaffected controls seen at Mayo Clinic from 2004 to 2016. Clinical, family history, and demographic information was collected on all MCBCS participants via questionnaires and medical record review. SNPs were selected for the PRS if they exceeded genome-wide significance in ≥2 large-scale breast cancer genome wide association studies (GWAS) in women of European descent. Selected SNPs were then used to construct a population standardized PRS, accounting for per-allele odds ratios reported in the largest GWAS to date and population-specific allele frequencies. PRS and Tyrer-Cuzick model associations with breast cancer and related clinical features were tested using multivariate logistic regression. Results: Among cases and controls, mean±SD age at diagnosis and study enrollment was 56.4±12.4 and 56.2±14.1, respectively. Approximately 36.9% of cases and 16.9% of controls had ≥1 first- or second-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. Among unaffected women, the median (IQR) estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer to age 85 based on Tyrer-Cuzick alone was 8.3% (6.9%), and 2.6% had a clinically actionable lifetime risk of ≥20%. The mean±SD sum of the risk alleles across 100 SNPs was significantly higher for cases vs. controls (94.8±6.3 vs. 92.7±6.2, p<0.001). Compared to women in the lowest quartile of PRS, those in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartiles were 1.47 (95% CI: 1.26-1.72), 1.87 (95% CI: 1.60-2.19), and 2.22 (95% CI: 1.89-2.61) times more likely to have breast cancer after adjustment for age and family history. The AUC was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.58-0.61) for PRS and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.58-0.61) for Tyrer-Cuzick model estimated risk alone; but when combined, the model achieved an AUC of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.62-0.65). Among unaffected women, 6.7% had ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer based on the combined PRS-clinical model. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the 100-SNP PRS significantly improves estimation of breast cancer risk based on non-genetic models, and can be used to further identify women at increased lifetime risk who would otherwise not be identified by clinical assessment alone. Citation Format: Mary Helen Black, Shuwei Li, Holly LaDuca, Sebastian Armasu, Eric C. Polley, Patrick Fitz-Gibbon, Chris G. Scott, Stacey J. Winham, Janet E. Olson, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Celine M. Vachon, Fergus J. Couch. Performance of a polygenic risk score combined with clinical assessment for breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-07-06.

Abstract Background: The clinical utility of routine annual mammogram after curative-intent treatment for male breast cancer is uncertain. There is potentially greater value after lumpectomy (as surveillance for ipsilateral recurrence) than mastectomy (as screening for a new contralateral cancer). The goal of this study was to assess real world use of mammography in men during the first year after lumpectomy or mastectomy to treat breast cancer. Methods: Administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse (a large US database that includes privately insured patients and Medicare Advantage-insured enrollees from all 50 states and of all ages and ethnic and racial groups) were used to identify men treated with breast surgery for a new diagnosis of breast cancer between 2007 and 2017. We required continuous coverage starting at least 6 months prior to the non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosis and continuing until at least 13 months after the breast surgery. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had at least one mammogram during the year (13-month period, to allow for scheduling and other logistical delays) after lumpectomy or mastectomy. Univariate and multivariate testing were performed to identify predictors of mammography (with p<0.05 used as the threshold for statistical significance for both). Our secondary endpoint was the proportion with at least one mammogram within 24 months of surgery, performed in a subset who maintained their insurance coverage for at least that duration. Results: The 13-month analysis included 730 men with a median age at diagnosis of 62 years (Range: 25 to 87 years) and a median follow-up duration of 35 months (Range: 13 to 134 months). 209 (29%) of these men underwent mammography within 13 months after surgery. The characteristics of patients who underwent mammography and those who did not are shown in Table 1. Mammography was more likely after lumpectomy than mastectomy (41% vs. 27%) and after radiation therapy (41% vs. 32% in those who did not receive radiation). In a multivariate logistic regression model, more recent diagnosis (2015+) was associated with lower odds of undergoing mammography, while receipt of radiation was associated with higher odds of undergoing mammography. In the subset of patients with two or more years of post-surgery coverage (n=527), the proportion who had at least one mammogram during that 24-month period was 49% after lumpectomy and 40% after mastectomy. Conclusions: In this insured cohort, 73% of men did not undergo mammography within a year after mastectomy, and 59% did not within a year after lumpectomy. Mammography was less likely in patients diagnosed more recently (perhaps due to acknowledgment of the unique aspects of male breast cancer including a relatively low risk of contralateral second primary tumors), and more likely in those who received radiation. These variations in practice likely result from the paucity of evidence-based guidelines for male breast cancer survivorship care. More research is needed pertaining to whether or not mammograms improve clinical outcomes after curative intent treatment for male breast cancer. Table 1: Patient characteristics associated with receipt of mammogram within first 13 months after male breast cancer surgeryUnivariate AnalysisMultivariate AnalysisNo Mammogram (N=521)Mammogram (N=209)P-value, chi-square testOdds Ratio (OR) and 95% CIP-value for ORAge Group:0.1225-4966 (12.7%)32 (15.3%)Reference50-64216 (41.5%)98 (46.9%)0.99 (0.60, 1.63)0.9665-74112 (21.5%)44 (21.1%)0.87 (0.48, 1.57)0.6575+127 (24.4%)35 (16.7%)0.57 (0.30, 1.07)0.08Census Region:0.52Midwest138 (26.5%)59 (28.2%)ReferenceNortheast97 (18.6%)47 (22.5%)1.10 (0.68, 1.78)0.69South223 (42.8%)79 (37.8%)0.74 (0.49, 1.11)0.15West63 (12.1%)24 (11.5%)0.83 (0.47, 1.47)0.51Year of diagnosis:0.072007-2010126 (24.2%)65 (31.1%)Reference2011-2014199 (38.2%)82 (39.2%)0.80 (0.54, 1.20)0.292015+196 (37.6%)62 (29.7%)0.63 (0.41, 0.96)0.03Elixhauser Category:0.250148 (28.4%)69 (33.0%)Reference1-2218 (41.8%)74 (35.4%)0.85 (0.56, 1.28)0.433+155 (29.8%)66 (31.6%)1.18 (0.75, 1.87)0.47Surgery Type:0.005Lumpectomy55 (10.6%)38 (18.2%)ReferenceMastectomy466 (89.4%)171 (81.8%)1.57 (0.97, 2.55)0.07Chemotherapy:0.79No301 (57.8%)123 (58.9%)ReferenceYes220 (42.2%)86 (41.1%)0.79 (0.54, 1.16)0.23Radiation:0.02No355 (68.1%)124 (59.3%)ReferenceYes166 (31.9%)85 (40.7%)1.51 (1.03, 2.20)0.03 Citation Format: Siddhartha Yadav, Lindsey Sangaralingham, Stephanie R. Payne, Karthik V. Giridhar, Tina J. Hieken, Judy C. Boughey, Robert W. Mutter, John R. Hawse, Rafael E. Jimenez, Rachel A. Freedman, Sadia Choudhery, Fergus J. Couch, Celine M. Vachon, Nilay Shah, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Kathryn J. Ruddy. Surveillance mammography after treatment for male breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-17-08.

Abstract Introduction: Male breast cancer (BCa) is a rare disease accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancers (BC) and 1% of all cancers in males. The clinical management is largely extrapolated from female BCa. Few studies have examined the genomic landscape of male BCas, with six male BCas included in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Familial studies of male BCas have shown genomic changes similar to female BCa, while a larger targeted sequencing study of 59 male breast cancers identified recurrent mutations affecting PIK3CA and GATA3. To date, there is still limited information regarding the genomic landscape of male BCas; particularly in the context of identifying targeted treatments. To reveal genomic changes that characterize male BCas in the context of known cancer driver genes linked to prognosis and targeted agents, we performed a targeted sequencing study on 248 male BCas from the International Male Breast Cancer Program. Methods: 248 primary M0, ER+ve, HER2-ve male BCas enrolled in the Part 1 (retrospective joint analysis) International Male Breast Cancer Program of 1483 patients diagnosed between 1990-2010 (Cardoso et al. Annals of Oncology, 2018) were processed for nucleic acid extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues. Using the Thermo Fisher Scientific Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3 (OCAv3), a validated targeted sequencing panel currently used in the NCI-MATCH trial (NCT02465060), we evaluated mutational and copy number variations (CNVs) of genes that are prognostic or predictive to targeted therapies currently in use in the clinic or late-stage clinical trials. The OCAv3 DNA pan-cancer panel assays 115 genes for determining mutational status (48 full coding and 67 hotspot) as well as copy-number assessment in 43 genes. The OCAv3 uses Ampliseq-based technology linked to the Oncomine NGS workflow to identify actionable mutations and CNVs Results: Of the 248 samples assayed, 216 passed strict quality control parameters (87.1%). Using the Oncomine NGS workflow, actionable mutations at ≥5% variant allele frequency (VAF) were most frequently identified in PIK3CA (29.2%), BRCA2 (11.1%), NF1 (11.6%), indels in TP53 (10.6%), ATR (5.6%), ATRX (5.1%), indel BRCA2 (5.1%), TP53 point mutations (4.6%), MET (4.6%), ATM (4.6%), NOTCH2 (4.6%), CHEK1 (4.2%), FANCI (4.2%), PTEN (3.2%) with a number of additional genes identified at lower frequencies. Gene amplifications were most frequently detected in MYC (24.5%), FGFR1 (14.8%), CCND1 (12%), FGF3 (9.7%), FGF19 (9.7%), MDM2 (6.5%), CDK4 (1.4%), FGFR3, MDM4, ERBB2 (0.9% each), and FLT3, AR, MYCL, CDK6, IGF1R, FGFR4, KRAS, AKT3 and ESR1 (0.5% each). Although the results here describe the mutations and copy-number changes deemed to be actionable, further analysis of all non-actionable somatic mutations and CNVs will be presented and compared to female BCas previously assayed using the same panel. Conclusion: In this targeted sequencing study of the largest series of male BCas to our knowledge, we have revealed that PIK3CA continues to be a frequently altered gene in both male and female BCas. However, there is an enrichment of mutations in genes related to DNA repair in male BCs. Interestingly, while MYC is commonly amplified in female BCa, a higher frequency of amplified cases were seen in male BCas, in contrast to female BCas. Together with our previously generated transcriptional profiling data in this data set, we believe that both common and unique biological processes comprising male and female BCas will ultimately improve their clinical management and move towards the goal of precision medicine. This work has been funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF). Citation Format: Jane Bayani, Coralie Poncet, Cheryl Crozier, Quang M Trinh, Megan Hopkins, Aime Lambert Uwimana, Tammy Piper, Carrie Cunningham, Monika Sobol, Stefan Aebi, Kim Benstead, Oliver Bogler, Lissandra Dal Lago, Florentine Hilbers, Ingrid Hedenfalk, Larissa Korde, Barbro Linderholm, John Martens, Lavinia Middleton, Melissa Murray, Catherine Kelly, Cecilia Nilsson, Monika Nowaczyk, Stephanie Peeters, Aleksandra Peric, Peggy Porter, Carolien Schröder, Isabel T Rubio, Kathryn J Ruddy, Christi van Asperen, Danielle Van Den Weyngaert, Carolien HM van Deurzen, Elise van Leeuwen-Stok, Joanna Vermeij, Eric Winer, Lincoln D Stein, Sharon H Giordano, Fatima Cardoso, John MS Bartlett. The genomic landscape of male breast cancers using the oncomine comprehensive assay for actionable mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-03.

Abstract Background: Breast cancer arising in young women is more likely to have higher risk features than in older women and more likely to be associated with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We previously reported a higher distribution of luminal B-like tumors among young women. Here we present the clinical and pathologic features of invasive disease in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer, and associations between surrogate molecular subtype and BRCA 1/2 mutation status. Methods: Among 1,297 young women (aged ≤40 years) with breast cancer enrolled from 2006-2016, tumor histopathological features were examined by central review, and biomarker status was extracted from pathology reports. Based on histologic grade and biomarker expression, invasive tumors were categorized as luminal A-like (LA=ER/PR+ and HER2-, histologic grade 1 or 2), luminal B-like (LB=ER/PR+ and HER2+, or ER/PR+, HER2-, and grade 3), HER2 enriched (E) (ER/PR- and HER2+) or triple negative (TN=ER-, PR- and HER2-). Tumor stage, clinical characteristics, and BRCA status were retrieved by medical record review (and patient survey for BRCA status if not in medical record). Results: The majority of women presented with early stage invasive disease (8% stage 0, 32% stage 1, 40% stage 2, 15% stage 3; 5% stage 4). Among invasive tumors with evaluable molecular phenotype (n=1,136), 57% were high grade and the distribution of subtypes was: 33% LA, 42% LB, 8% HER2E, and 16% TN (Table 1). Among different age groups (≤ 30, 31-35, and 36-40 years), there were no significant differences in molecular phenotype, tumor stage, tumor grade or histopathological features including presence of tumor necrosis, lymphocytic infiltration, and central fibrotic focus. 96% of women were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and 127 (11%) tested positive: 65% were BRCA1+, and 35% were BRCA2+ (table 2). Among BRCA1+ patients, 2% of cancers were LA, 30% LB, 5% HER2E, and 62% TN; among BRCA2+, 29% were LA, 56% LB, 2% HER2E, and 13% TN. These proportions were relatively consistent across age groups. BRCA1+ patients’ tumors were proportionately more TN and BRCA2+ patients’ tumors more likely to be LB/HER2 negative (p<0.0001), irrespective of age category. Conclusion: In a large cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤40, there was no association between age group (≤ 30, 31-35, vs. 36-40 years) and tumor stage, grade, or tumor molecular phenotype among women with invasive disease. As in older women, tumor molecular phenotype does vary by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status, which has implications for prevention and treatment. Table 1. Subtype by age groupTotal (n=1136)≤30 yrs (n=144)31-35 yrs (n=314)36-40 yrs (n=678)p=0.42Luminal A-like377 (33%)48 (33%)99 (32%)230 (34%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)59 (41%)137 (44%)281 (41%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)27 (19%)68 (22%)150 (22%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)32 (22%)69 (22%)131 (19%)HER2E95 (8%)13 (9%)34 (11%)48 (7%)Triple Negative187 (16%)24 (17%)44 (14%)119 (18%) Table 2. Subtype by BRCA statusTotal(n=1136)BRCA1+(n=82)BRCA2+(n=45)No mutation/not tested(n=1009)p<0.0001Luminal A-like377 (33%)2 (2%)13 (29%)362 (36%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)25 (30%)25 (56%)427 (42%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)21 (26%)18 (40%)206 (20%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)4 (5%)7 (16%)221 (22%)HER2E95 (8%)4 (5%)1 (2%)90 (9%)Triple Negative187 (16%)51 (62%)6 (13%)130 (13%) Citation Format: Yaileen D Guzman-Arocho, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Philip Poorvu, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Greg Kirkner, Craig Snow, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Elena F. Brachtel, Ellen Warner, Ann H. Partridge, Laura C. Collins. Clinicopathological features and BRCA 1/2 status in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-02.

Abstract BACKGROUND Fertility can be diminished by adjuvant chemotherapy or by age-related decline in ovarian reserve in young women with breast cancer (BC). We sought to better understand the burden of concern about fertility, utilization of fertility preservation strategies, and the impact of fertility concerns on treatment decision-making among young women newly diagnosed with BC enrolled in a large multi-site study. METHODS The Young and Strong study was a cluster-randomized study that tested the effect of an educational and supportive care intervention for young women with BC (≤45) and their oncologists, at community and academic sites across the US. Patients were surveyed following diagnosis at enrollment (within 3 months of diagnosis), and at 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter. The surveys included sociodemographic and psychosocial measures (HADS anxiety and depression; Perceived Stress Scale), as well as a modified Fertility Issues Survey, which assessed fertility concerns and preservation. Treatment and tumor pathology data were abstracted from the medical record. Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors that were associated with fertility concern. Variables with p ≤ 0.20 in univariable analyses were evaluated in the multivariable model using stepwise selection; variables achieving significance at p < 0.05 were included in the final model. RESULTS Of 467 women enrolled from 54 sites (14 academic, 40 community), 419 had evaluable data regarding treatment decision-making. Median age of participants at diagnosis was 40 yrs (range 22-45), 11% were African American, 80% were married/lived with a partner, and 75% had children. 35% of tumors were stage I, 51% stage II, and 14% stage III; 82% of women were treated with chemotherapy. At the time of treatment decision-making, 133 (32%) were concerned about fertility, varying by age, with fertility concern reported by 73%, 28% and 13% of those age ≤35, 36-40 and >40 (p<.01), respectively. 67 (16%) said their treatment decisions had been affected by fertility concerns, including 62 of the 133 (47%) with fertility concern. 12/419 (3%) chose one chemotherapy regimen over another, 4 (1%) chose not to take hormonal medication, and 32 (8%) chose or may choose to take it for less than 5 years. 251 (60%) reported having discussed fertility issues with their physician before starting therapy, including 117/133 (88%) of women with fertility concern. 29 (7%), including 27/133 (20%) of the concerned, took special steps to lessen the chance of infertility: 14 underwent cryopreservation of embryos, 14 cryopreservation of eggs and 12 took GnRH agonist or pursued other strategies. In the multivariable model, history of difficulty becoming pregnant (versus none, OR=3.86, 95%CI: 1.84-8.1) was associated with greater concern about fertility. Older age (OR=.75 per 1-year increase, 95%CI: 0.69-0.81) and having more than one child at diagnosis (versus never delivered, OR=0.14, 95%CI: 0.05-0.40) were associated with less concern about fertility. Race, being partnered, high-education, income, symptoms of depression, stress or anxiety at diagnosis, tumor stage, hormone receptor status and receipt of chemotherapy were not independently associated with concern about fertility in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION In a geographically and ethnically diverse study of young women with newly diagnosed BC in the U.S., many were concerned about fertility, with potential impact on their treatment decisions. For the majority of women, these concerns were discussed with their providers, though only a minority underwent fertility preservation strategies prior to treatment. Citation Format: Elisabeth Etaix, Yue Zheng, Shoshana Rosenberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, J Russel Hoverman, Karen M Emmons, Ann H Partridge. Fertility concerns and treatment decision-making among young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-17.

Abstract Background: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is prevalent among breast cancer survivors and more intense in younger women. Given that FCR is a powerful determinant of quality of life and is associated with healthcare utilization, identifying who may be at risk for experiencing elevated FCR without resolution can inform the timing and targeting of interventions. Methods: Participants included women diagnosed (dx’d) at age ≤40 enrolled in the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study, a multi-site prospective cohort surveyed at baseline and regularly in follow-up. Surveys include the 3-item Lasry Fear of Recurrence Index which measures the degree of concern about recurrence and current health using 4-point Likert response options that provide a score ranging from 3-12; higher scores indicate greater concern. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to classify distinct FCR patterns from baseline (median of 5 months from dx) through 3 years post-dx. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the associated patient (socio-demographics and BRCA status), disease (stage, ER/PR/HER2) and treatment (surgery, chemotherapy) characteristics associated with each trajectory. Variables significant at p<0.05 in univariable models were entered into the final multivariable model. Results: 965 women with Stages 0-III breast cancer were included in the analysis, with a median age at dx of 37. Participants were predominantly non-Hispanic White (85%), partnered (76%) and had completed college (84%). There was a significant decrease in median FCR scores from baseline to year 3 (9 vs. 8, Wilcoxon signed-rank test P<0.01). Five FCR trajectories (Table) were identified: 1) 10.5% of participants reported low/stable FCR from baseline over follow-up; 2) 33.1% had moderate FCR that improved over time; 3) 5.5% had moderate FCR scores at baseline that worsened over time; 4) 30% had high FCR scores at baseline that improved over time; 5) 20.8% had high FCR at baseline that remained high at all time points. In the fully adjusted multinomial model, younger age at dx and Stage 3 and 2 (vs. 1) disease were associated with higher odds of being in the high/stable trajectory. Having a lumpectomy (vs. mastectomy) was associated with higher odds of being in a high/stable as well as moderate/improving trajectory while White (vs. non-White) women had higher odds of being in a trajectory of improving FCR. Receipt of chemotherapy and financial discomfort were significantly associated with assignment to specific FCR trajectories in univariate analyses, however did not remain significant in the adjusted model. Being partnered, BRCA mutation status, and ER/PR/HER2 status were not significantly associated with any FCR trajectory classification in univariate or multivariate analyses. Conclusion: While FCR improves over time for many young women with breast cancer, a substantial minority (26%) had FCR that was severe and did not improve or worsened over time. Younger women with higher stage disease who are at risk for high levels of unresolved FCR may benefit from intervention including early referral to mental health professionals. Ongoing monitoring of women at risk for developing FCR following active treatment is warranted. Table Mean FCR score for each trajectoryBaselineYear 1Year 2Year 3TrajectoriesLow/Stable (N=103)5.725.605.545.45Moderate/Improving (N=331)7.907.487.287.09Moderate/Worsening (N=34)6.748.329.6410.54High/Improving (N=294)9.889.419.088.67High/Stable (N=203)11.0211.0811.0310.88 Citation Format: Lidia Schapira, Yue Zheng, Shari Gelber, Philip Poorvu, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rulla Tamini, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Steve Come, Virginia Borges, Ann Partridge, Shoshana Rosenberg. Trajectories of fear of cancer recurrence in young breast cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-09.

Abstract Background: CRA is a surrogate for ovarian toxicity and associated risk of infertility and long-term menopausal symptoms. Therefore, it is important to assess and report the rate of CRA when we study a new neoadjuvant treatment regimen. In the Adjuvant Paclitaxel and Tratuzumab (APT) trial, we found that CRA rate associated with adjuvant TH (12 weeks of paclitaxel and a year of trastuzumab) for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer was lower than historically seen with cyclophosphamide-based regimens. The ATEMPT trial allowed a direct comparison of the CRA rate associated with TDM1 and TH. Methods: The ATEMPT trial randomized patients (pts) with Stage I HER2+ breast cancer 3:1 to T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (w) x17 vs. T 80 mg/m2 IV with H qw x 12 (4 mg/kg load →2 mg/kg), followed by H (6 mg/kg q3w x 13). Participants who reported that they were premenopausal at enrollment were asked to complete menstrual surveys at baseline and every 6-12 months throughout a 36 month follow-up period. For this analysis, CRA was defined as report of no menstruation within the prior six months on a survey completed 18 months after enrollment. Results: Of 512 ATEMPT enrollees, 497 began protocol therapy, 130 (26%) were premenopausal at enrollment and answered baseline menstrual questions, 42 of these 130 were excluded from the current analyses because they did not complete the 18-month survey, and 7 of the remaining 88 had received gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist before 18 months, leaving 81 for analysis. None had undergone hysterectomy or oophorectomy. Median age was 44 (range 23-53) among the TH patients (n=20), and 46 (range 34-54) among the T-DM1 patients (n=61). On the 18-month survey, 45% of women treated with TH reported at least one one episode of menses during the prior 6 months compared to 75% of women in the T-DM1 arm (p=0.011). Among those ≤ 40 years old, 50% of TH patients and 100% of T-DM1 patients reported menstruation at that timepoint. Please see Table for additional data in subgroups. Conclusions: In this relatively small sample, CRA at 18 months was less common after adjuvant T-DM1 than after TH (though even with TH, nearly half of women did menstruate after chemotherapy, even in the subset aged 41+). This will be reassuring to young patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who seek to maintain ovarian function. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding and to assess a possible differential impact of these drugs on subgroups based on age, endocrine therapy, and body mass index. Additional research should also focus on menopausal symptoms and actual fertility after receipt of T-DM1. Menstruation in 61 T-DM1 arm patients with informative surveys at 18 monthsMenstruation in 20 TH arm patients with informative surveys at 18 monthsAge at study entry95% CI95% CI≤4012/12 (100%)74-100%4/8 (50%)16-84%41+34/49 (69%)55-82%5/12 (42%)15-72%BMI<3040/52 (77%)63-87%6/16 (38%)15-65%30+6/9 (67%)30-93%3/4 (75%)19-99%Endocrine therapy currentlyYes27/39 (69%)52-83%2/12 (17%)2-48%No19/22 (86%)65-97%7/9 (78%)40-97% Citation Format: Kathryn J. Ruddy, Lorenzo Trippa, Jiani Hu, William T. Barry, Chau T. Dang, Denise A. Yardley, Steven J. Isakoff, Vincente V. Valero, Meredith G. Faggen, Therese M. Mulvey, Ron Bose, Douglas J. Weckstein, Antonio C. Wolff, Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, Hope S. Rugo, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Dan S. Zuckerman, Lowell L. Hart, Vijayakrishna K. Gadi, Michael Constantine, Kit L. Cheng, Frederick M. Briccetti, Bryan P. Schneider, A. Merrill Garrett, P. Kelly Marcom, Kathy S. Albain, Patricia A. DeFusco, Nadine M. Tung, Blair M. Ardman, Rita Nanda, Rachel C. Jankowitz, Michelle K. DeMeo, Harold J. Burstein, Eric P. Winer, Ian E. Krop, Ann H. Partridge, Sara M. Tolaney. Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) after adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab (TH) (TBCRC033: ATEMPT trial) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-02.