Yadav, Siddhartha

Abstract Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast accounts for approximately 10-15% of all histologic subtypes of breast cancer. However, apart from germline mutations in CDH1, the contributions of mutations in other cancer predisposition genes to ILC are largely unknown. Methods: The study population included 3,893 women with ILC of the breast who underwent germline multigene panel testing of cancer predisposition genes at Ambry Genetics from March 2012 to December 2016. The prevalence of predisposition gene mutations in women with ILC was assessed relative to 38,004 women with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) who underwent germline multigene panel testing at Ambry Genetics during the same timeframe. Associations between mutations in each gene and risk of ILC were evaluated using reference controls. Results: Of the 3,893 women with ILC included in this study, 70.7% were non-Hispanic white, 65.1% had a family history of breast cancer, and 96.4% had estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer. The overall frequency of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MRE11A, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D and TP53) was 7.8% for women with ILC and 10.7% for women with IDC. Mutations in CDH1 were significantly more frequent (Odds Ratio (OR)=12.1, p<0.001), whereas mutations in BRCA1 (OR=0.1; p<0.001) and PALB2 (OR=0.4; p<0.001)were less frequent in women with ILC, compared to women with IDC. When restricting the analysis to ER positive cases only, significant differences in frequencies of ATM (OR=0.6, p=0.03), BRCA1 (OR=0.3, p<0.001), CDH1 (OR=7.7, p<0.001) and PALB2 (OR=0.3, p<0.001) were observed in ILC compared to IDC. By comparison with gnomAD reference controls, ATM, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2 and PTEN mutations were significantly associated with an increased risk of lLC and IDC (OR>2), NBN mutations were associated with ILC (OR=3.4; p<0.001) but not IDC, and BRCA1 mutations were not associated with increased risk of ILC. Among 274 women with ILC over the age of 50 without history of any other cancer or a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, 14 (5.1%) were found to carry a mutation in one of the genes evaluated. Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with ILC, the frequencies of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes were similar between ILC and IDC except for ATM, BRCA1, CDH1 and PALB2. Six genes, in addition to CDH1, were found to be germline predisposition genes for ILC. A substantial proportion of patients older than 50 with ILC without a family history of breast or ovarian cancer or a personal history of other cancers were found to be mutation carriers. These findings improve our understanding of germline genetic drivers of ILC and suggest that multigene genetic testing should be considered for all ILC patients. Citation Format: Siddhartha Yadav, Holly LaDuca, Eric C. Polley, Chunling Hu, Steven N. Hart, Jie Na, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Brandon Smith, David E Goldgar, Tina Pesaran, Jill S. Dolinsky, Fergus J. Couch. Germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast [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 P6-08-04.

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: 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 Background The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies. Methods Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to >100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer. Conclusions The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.

PURPOSE To determine the sensitivity and specificity of genetic testing criteria for the detection of germline pathogenic variants in women with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Women with breast cancer enrolled in a breast cancer registry at a tertiary cancer center between 2000 and 2016 were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in 9 breast cancer predisposition genes ( ATM , BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53). The performance of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) hereditary cancer testing criteria was evaluated relative to testing of all women as recommended by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. RESULTS Of 3,907 women, 1,872 (47.9%) meeting NCCN criteria were more likely to carry a pathogenic variant in 9 predisposition genes compared with women not meeting criteria (9.0% v 3.5%; P < .001). Of those not meeting criteria (n = 2,035), 14 (0.7%) had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for 9 predisposition genes and 87% for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a specificity of 53%. Expansion of the NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 65 years of age achieved > 90% sensitivity for the 9 predisposition genes and > 98% sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSION A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer carrying germline pathogenic variants in predisposition genes do not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria. Expansion of NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed at ≤ 65 years of age improves the sensitivity of the selection criteria without requiring testing of all women with breast cancer.

Abstract Background The germline cancer predisposition genes associated with increased risk of each clinical subtype of breast cancer, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2, are not well defined. Methods A total of 54 555 invasive breast cancer patients with 56 480 breast tumors were subjected to clinical hereditary cancer multigene panel testing. Heterogeneity for predisposition genes across clinical breast cancer subtypes was assessed by comparing mutation frequencies by gene among tumor subtypes and by association studies between each tumor subtype and reference controls. Results Mutations in 15 cancer predisposition genes were detected in 8.6% of patients with ER+/HER2-; 8.9% with ER+/HER2+; 7.7% with ER-/HER2+; and 14.4% of ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. BRCA1, BRCA2, BARD1, and PALB2 mutations were enriched in ER- and HER2- tumors; RAD51C and RAD51D mutations were enriched in ER- tumors only; TP53 mutations were enriched in HER2+ tumors, and ATM and CHEK2 mutations were enriched in both ER+ and/or HER2+ tumors. All genes were associated with moderate (odds ratio &gt; 2.00) or strong (odds ratio &gt; 5.00) risks of at least one subtype of breast cancer in case-control analyses. Mutations in ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53 had predicted lifetime absolute risks of at least 20.0% for breast cancer. Conclusions Germline mutations in hereditary cancer panel genes confer subtype-specific risks of breast cancer. Combined tumor subtype, age at breast cancer diagnosis, and family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer information provides refined categorical estimates of mutation prevalence for women considering genetic testing.

PURPOSE: There is a concern that influenza vaccination could increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of our study was to determine the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who received at least 1 dose of pembrolizumab during any influenza season from September 2014 to August 2017 and reviewed medical records for irAEs. The primary endpoint was the incidence of irAEs. We used multivariable logistic regression and cumulative incidence curve with competing risks for comparison. RESULTS: Among 162 patients with cancer included in this study, 70 patients (43.2%) received at least 1 influenza vaccination. The vaccinated group was significantly older ( P = .002) and received more cycles of pembrolizumab ( P = .006). The incidence of any grade irAEs in the vaccinated group trended toward being lower (25.7% v 40.2%; P = .07) compared with the nonvaccinated group. Influenza vaccination was independently associated with fewer irAEs, with an odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9; P = .03) in multivariable analyses. The vaccinated group was less likely to have irAEs compared with the nonvaccinated group (24.7% v 34.4% at 12 months; P = .05), with death as a competing risk. The median irAE-free duration in the vaccinated group was longer than the nonvaccinated group (not reached v 28 months; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was not associated with increased irAEs. This supports the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population.

706 Background: In recent years, there has been a shift towards neo-adjuvant treatment (NAT) of non-metastatic pancreas cancer in the hopes of improving negative margin rate, lymph node negativity, recurrence and survival. Even patients deemed resectable based on NCCN criteria are receiving NAT but data for these patients remains limited. This current study evaluated the outcomes of patients diagnosed with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients were retrospectively identified through the Mayo Clinic, Rochester SPORE pancreatic cancer registry as well as search of the electronic medical record via Advanced Cohort Explorer from May 2011 to 2016. Baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, treatments rendered, and outcomes were collected. Variables were analyzed for association with recurrence from time of surgery and survival from time of diagnosis using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 520 patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified. 72 patients received upfront chemotherapy with 44 (61.1%) proceeding to surgical resection. 62 patients received upfront chemotherapy followed by radiation with 33 (53.2%) proceeding to surgical resection. 12 patients received upfront radiation alone with 7 (58.3%) proceeding to surgical resection. 374 patients did not receive any NAT with 293 (78.3%) proceeding to surgical resection. In total, 377 (72.5%) went to resection. Median time to recurrence from surgery was 27.7 months vs. 21.7 months for NAT and upfront resection, respectively (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.72, p = 0.48). Median overall survival from diagnosis for those receiving NAT was 40.6 months vs. 24.7 months for those receiving upfront resection (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.92, p = 0.02). Conclusions: This study shows an approximate 16 month improvement in overall survival of patients receiving upfront NAT for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This might be due to a better selection of patients. It also highlights that not all patients with resectable cancer undergo resection. Further studies are warranted to identify why resectable patients are not proceeding to resection and which specific NAT approaches benefit patients the most.