Citations

Abstract Purpose: To explore the role of NBN as a pan-cancer susceptibility gene. Experimental Design: Matched germline and somatic DNA samples from 34,046 patients were sequenced using Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets and presumed pathogenic germline variants (PGV) identified. Allele-specific and gene-centered analysis of enrichment was conducted and a validation cohort of 26,407 pan-cancer patients was analyzed. Functional studies utilized cellular models with analysis of protein expression, MRN complex formation/localization, and viability assessment following treatment with γ-irradiation. Results: We identified 83 carriers of 32 NBN PGVs (0.25% of the studied series), 40% of which (33/83) carried the Slavic founder p.K219fs. The frequency of PGVs varied across cancer types. Patients harboring NBN PGVs demonstrated increased loss of the wild-type allele in their tumors [OR = 2.7; confidence interval (CI): 1.4–5.5; P = 0.0024; pan-cancer], including lung and pancreatic tumors compared with breast and colorectal cancers. p.K219fs was enriched across all tumor types (OR = 2.22; CI: 1.3–3.6; P = 0.0018). Gene-centered analysis revealed enrichment of PGVs in cases compared with controls in the European population (OR = 1.9; CI: 1.3–2.7; P = 0.0004), a finding confirmed in the replication cohort (OR = 1.8; CI: 1.2–2.6; P = 0.003). Two novel truncating variants, p.L19* and p.N71fs, produced a 45 kDa fragment generated by alternative translation initiation that maintained binding to MRE11. Cells expressing these fragments showed higher sensitivity to γ-irradiation and lower levels of radiation-induced KAP1 phosphorylation. Conclusions: Burden analyses, biallelic inactivation, and functional evidence support the role of NBN as contributing to a broad cancer spectrum. Further studies in large pan-cancer series and the assessment of epistatic and environmental interactions are warranted to further define these associations.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

AbstractGermline genetic testing for inherited cancer risk is increasingly being performed with multigene panel testing with MUTYH often included on colorectal cancer‐ and polyposis‐focused panels, as well as on broader pan‐cancer panels. With up to 1%–2% of the general population being monoallelic MUTYH carriers, pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in MUTYH are one of the most common findings on multigene cancer panels. However, little is known about patient experience and understanding of monoallelic MUTYH P/LP variants, nor whether such findings influence medical management recommendations and familial communication, which this study aims to better understand. Monoallelic P/LP MUTYH carriers were recruited from the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT) and completed a cross‐sectional self‐report survey on sociodemographic characteristics, medical and family history, experiences with MUTYH genetic testing, genetics and MUTYH knowledge, perceived cancer risk, and familial communication. Of 115 eligible PROMPT participants, 49 (43%) completed the survey who were primarily female (94%), white (96%), had a history of cancer (61%), and a median age of 51.4 years. Most participants (61%) reported satisfaction with how their healthcare provider managed their genetic test result and care, and 65% of survey participants reported their provider recommended colonoscopy based on their genetic test results. Participants' responses also reflected variable levels of knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening recommendations for MUTYH carriers. The majority (98%) of participants shared their genetic test results with at least some of their relatives; however, only 13% of eligible relatives reportedly underwent cascade testing. Taken together, this study provides needed insight into the overall experiences of monoallelic MUTYH carriers and highlights numerous areas for improvement in clinician education, communication, and management of these individuals.

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .

AbstractBackgroundRecent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.Methods483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.ResultsPRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.ConclusionsPopulation-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.

10500 Background: Inherited pathogenic variants in ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 confer moderate to high risks of breast cancer. The optimal approach to screening in these women has not been established. Methods: We used two simulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) and data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium (CARRIERS) to project lifetime breast cancer incidence and mortality in ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 carriers. We simulated screening with annual mammography from ages 40-74 alone and with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starting at ages 40, 35, 30, and 25. Joint and separate mammography and MRI screening performance was based on published literature. Lifetime outcomes per 1,000 women were reported as means and ranges across both models. Results: Estimated risk of breast cancer by age 80 was 22% (21-23%) for ATM, 28% (26-30%) for CHEK2, and 40% (38-42%) for PALB2. Screening with MRI and mammography reduced breast cancer mortality by 52-60% across variants (Table). Compared to no screening, starting MRI at age 30 increased life years (LY)/1000 women by 501 (478-523) in ATM, 620 (587-652) in CHEK2, and 1,025 (998-1,051) in PALB2. Starting MRI at age 25 versus 30 gained 9-12 LY/1000 women with 517-518 additional false positive screens and 197-198 benign biopsies. Conclusions: For women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants, breast cancer screening with MRI and mammography halves breast cancer mortality. These mortality benefits are similar to those for MRI screening for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and should inform practice guidelines.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE Women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. Whether mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with breast and another primary cancer over those with a single breast cancer (S-BC) is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS We identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in 2 different cohorts: cohort 1, high-risk breast cancer program (multiple primary breast cancer [MP-BC], n = 551; S-BC, n = 449) and cohort 2, familial breast cancer research study (MP-BC, n = 340; S-BC, n = 1,464). Mutation rates in these 2 cohorts were compared with a control data set (Exome Aggregation Consortium [ExAC]). RESULTS Overall, pathogenic mutation rates for autosomal, dominantly inherited genes were higher in patients with MP-BC versus S-BC in both cohorts (8.5% v 4.9% [ P = .02] and 7.1% v 4.2% [ P = .03]). There were differences in individual gene mutation rates between cohorts. In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates; the age of non–breast cancers was unrelated to mutation rate. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with MP-BC but not S-BC, whereas ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups compared with ExAC. CONCLUSION Mutation rates are at least 7% in all patients with BRCA1/2 mutation–negative MP-BC, regardless of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, with mutation rates up to 25% in patients with a first breast cancer diagnosed at age < 30 years. Our results suggest that all patients with breast cancer with a second primary cancer, regardless of age of onset, should undergo multigene panel testing.

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) reduce breast cancer recurrence and prolong survival, but up to 30% of patients exhibit recurrence. Using a genome-wide association study of patients entered on MA.27, a phase III randomized trial of anastrozole versus exemestane, we identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in CUB And Sushi multiple domains 1 ( CSMD1) associated with breast cancer–free interval, with the variant allele associated with fewer distant recurrences. Mechanistically, CSMD1 regulates CYP19 expression in an SNP- and drug-dependent fashion, and this regulation is different among 3 AIs: anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. Overexpression of CSMD1 sensitized AI-resistant cells to anastrozole but not to the other 2 AIs. The SNP in CSMD1 that was associated with increased CSMD1 and CYP19 expression levels increased anastrozole sensitivity, but not letrozole or exemestane sensitivity. Anastrozole degrades estrogen receptor α (ERα), especially in the presence of estradiol (E2). ER + breast cancer organoids and AI- or fulvestrant-resistant breast cancer cells were more sensitive to anastrozole plus E2 than to AI alone. Our findings suggest that the CSMD1 SNP might help to predict AI response, and anastrozole plus E2 serves as a potential new therapeutic strategy for patients with AI- or fulvestrant-resistant breast cancers.

Objectives Based on our previous findings that postmenopausal women with estrone (E1) and estradiol (E2) concentrations at or above 1.3 pg/ml and 0.5 pg/ml, respectively, after 6 months of adjuvant anastrozole therapy had a three-fold risk of recurrence, we aimed to identify a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based model that would predict elevated E1 and E2 and then validate it in an independent dataset. Patients and methods The test set consisted of 322 women from the M3 study and the validation set consisted of 152 patients from MA.27. All patients were treated with adjuvant anastrozole, had on-anastrozole E1 and E2 concentrations and genome-wide genotyping. Results SNPs were identified from the M3 genome-wide association study. The best model to predict the E1-E2 phenotype with high balanced accuracy was a support vector machine model using clinical factors plus 46 SNPs. We did not have an independent cohort that is similar to the M3 study with clinical, E1-E2 phenotypes and genotype data to test our model. Hence, we chose a nested matched case-control cohort (MA.27 study) for testing. Our E1-E2 model was not validated but we found the MA.27 validation cohort was both clinically and genomically different. Conclusions We identified a SNP-based model that had excellent performance characteristics for predicting the phenotype of elevated E1 and E2 in women treated with anastrozole. This model was not validated in an independent dataset but that dataset was clinically and genomically substantially different. The model will need validation in a prospective study.