Citations

Abstract Germline mutations in several cancer predisposition genes included in hereditary multigene testing panels have been associated with increased breast cancer risk. However, estimates of breast cancer risks for each gene have in large part been derived from studies of high-risk populations enriched for family history of breast and ovarian cancer, young age of breast cancer diagnosis, or founder mutations. The breast cancer risks associated with mutations in many of these genes in the general population remain to be clearly defined. As clinical hereditary cancer genetic testing is already provided to many women at increased risk and may soon be offered to all breast cancer patients, population-based risk estimates associated with predisposition gene mutations will be needed for appropriate clinical management of mutation carriers. The “CAnceR RIsk Estimates Related to Susceptibility” (CARRIERS) consortium of 17 cohort-based case-control, population-based case-control, and family studies focused on estimation of population-based breast cancer risks and penetrance analysis for mutations in known and candidate breast cancer predisposition genes. Germline DNA from 39486 breast cancer cases and 35868 matched controls was subjected to dual bar-coded QIAseq multiplex amplification of 1733 target regions in 37 predisposition genes. Products from sets of 768 samples were pooled and sequenced in each lane of a HiSeq 4000 system. Mutations were called by GATK Haplotype Caller and Verdict. High quality sequence data was obtained for 99.3% of target regions. Here we report on results from 34741 population-based breast cancer cases and 32728 matched unaffected controls. The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis for cases was 61.2 years and mean age for controls was 61.1 years. Overall, 20.9% of cases and 14.3% of controls had a family history of breast cancer. Furthermore, 74.3% of cases and 75.8% of controls were non-Hispanic white, whereas 13.3% of cases and 15.3% of controls were African American. Among cases with tumor information available, 81.7% were ER-positive and 7.7% were triple negative breast cancers (TNBC). We assessed mutation frequencies in 24 genes including 12 established breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, andTP53). The overall mutation frequency was 6.2% in cases and 2.7% in controls. Case-control association analysis after adjusting for study, age, family history of breast cancer, and race/ethnicity showed that BRCA1(OR=7.45; 95%CI:5.24-10.95) and BRCA2(OR=5.31; 95%CI:4.15-6.88) were associated with high risks of breast cancer in the general population. However, PALB2mutations were only associated with moderate risks (OR=3.63; 95%CI:2.57-5.26). ATMmutations conferred attenuated risks (OR=1.83; 95%CI:1.47-2.28) relative to studies of high-risk families or young onset breast cancers. NBNmutations were not associated with increased breast cancer risk. Mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51Dand XRCC2were specifically significantly associated with moderate risks of ER-negative breast cancer and TNBC, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1and CHEK2were specifically significantly associated with ER-positive disease. On the basis of these findings age-related absolute breast cancer risks for commonly mutated genes were estimated. Overall, results from the CARRIERS study establish that mutations in predisposition genes are associated with lower risks of breast cancer in the general population than in enriched populations including high-risk families and young onset, bilateral, or multiple primary cases. We anticipate that the results from this study will inform cancer screening and other risk management strategies for women in the general population with mutations in predisposition genes. Citation Format: Fergus J Couch, Chunling Hu, Steven N Hart, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y Lee, Jie Na, Chi Gao, Nicholas J Boddicker, Bruce Eckloff, Raed Samara, Josh Klebba, Christine B Ambrosone, Hoda Anton-Culver, Paul Auer, Leslie Bernstein, Mia M Gaudet, Christopher Haiman, Esther M John, Susan Neuhausen, Janet E Olson, Tuya Pal, Julie R Palmer, Dale P Sandler, Jack A Taylor, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Celine M Vachon, Clarice Weinberg, Song Yao, Jeffrey N Weitzel, David E Goldgar, Susan M Domchek, Katherine L Nathanson, Peter Kraft, Eric C Polley. Population-based breast cancer risk estimates for predisposition gene mutations: Results from the CARRIERS study [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 PD3-01.

Abstract Background: TNBC is the most aggressive sub-type of breast cancer and has limited targeted therapies. Atezolizumab was recently FDA-approved for patients with advanced PD-L1+ TNBC. In a well-characterized cohort of patients with early-stage TNBC, we used the FDA-approved PD-L1 SP142 companion assay for atezolizumab to score whole tumor sections for PD-L1 expression. We determined the frequency and scoring distribution of PD-L1 in these tumors and evaluated PD-L1 status for associations with clinicopathologic variables and outcomes. Methods: Whole tumor sections from 498 women with surgically-treated, non-(distant) metastatic TNBC (ER/PR <1% & HER2-negative by central review) were semi-quantitatively scored for % of PD-L1-staining tumor cells (TC) or tumor-associated immune cells (IC) (PD-L1 SP142, Ventana, performed in CAP/CLIA-certified clinical laboratory). Per FDA assay guidelines, PD-L1+ tumors were defined as ≥1% of tumor-associated immune cells (IC) staining per tumor area. Baseline clinical characteristics, histopathologic features, Ki-67 proliferative indices (PI), and stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were correlated with PD-L1 status. The impact of tumoral PD-L1 status on invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: The majority of tumors were pT1-T2 (95%), pN0-1 (85%), and grade 3 (90%) with Ki-67 >15% (80%). 228/498 (46%) tumors were PD-L1+, distributed as IC score 1-5%: 21%, 6-10%: 13%, 11-20%: 5% and >20%: 7%. 270/498 (54%) were PD-L1-. 43 (8.6%) of tumors had PD-L1 staining in TC (all but 1 were also IC+). PD-L1 IC expression was associated with larger tumor size (p = 0.005), higher nodal stage (≥pN1: 43% vs. 31%, p < 0.001), higher grade (grade 3: 95% vs. 86%, p< 0.001), higher Ki-67 PI (>15%: 88% vs. 69%, p <0.001), and stromal TILs (median score: 40% vs. 10%; p < 0.001). PD-L1 IC status was not associated with patient age. Among histologic subtypes, PD-L1+ tumors were more frequently medullary type (31% vs. 6%) and less frequently metaplastic type (4% vs 10%). At time of this analysis, median follow-up for IDFS and OS were 11 years and 7.2 years, respectively. By univariable analysis, absence of PD-L1 IC expression was associated with poorer IDFS (median: 15.5 vs. 20 years, p = 0.04) and OS (9.5 vs. 17.5 years, p < 0.05).By multivariable analysis, tumor size, stromal TILs, nodal status, and adjuvant chemotherapy (CTX) were significantly associated with IDFS. Age, stromal TILs, nodal status, and receipt of adjuvant CTX were associated with OS. PD-L1+ tumors trended toward improved IDFS (statistical significance not reached), HR: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.45-1.03, p= 0.068) but not OS: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.52-1.57, p= 0.32). Conclusion: Using the PD-L1 SP142 companion assay, almost half of early-stage TNBC were PD-L1+ (IC). However, PD-L1 expression correlated with increasing tumor size and nodal burden, as well as histologic grade, Ki-67 PI, stromal TILs and lymphocyte-enriched subtypes. PD-L1 was associated with improved IDFS and OS in univariable analysis but not multivariable analysis. The majority of the PD-L1+ tumors (73%) had IC scores ≤10%, with heterogeneous tumoral staining. Given the low (1%) assay threshold for positivity, these data emphasize the utility of evaluating PD-L1 in whole tumor sections rather than tissue cores. Citation Format: Jodi M Carter, Mei-Yin C Polley, Jason P Sinnwell, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Fergus J Couch, Krishna R Kalari, Judy C Boughey, Minetta C Liu, Daniel W Visscher, Matthew P Goetz. Frequency, characteristics and prognostic factors of PD-L1+ triple negative breast cancer using the PD-L1 SP142 companion assay [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 PD1-08.

Abstract Background: BRCA1/2 genes play a central role in DNA repair. Therefore, pts harboring gBRCA1/2m treated with chemotherapy might be at higher risk of acute hematological toxicities due to the lower level of functional BRCA1/2 protein potentially resulting in more toxicity. Published results are discordant, further data are needed. Methods: Pts with early TNBC and known gBRCA1/2m treated with anthracycline-taxane based NACT in the GeparQuinto (n=487), GeparSixto (n=291) and GeparOcto (n=393) studies were included. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was foreseen only for the iddETC arm in GeparOcto. Primary objective was the rate of neutropenia grade (G)3-4 after cycle 1; secondary objectives were the rate of other hematological toxicities G3-4 and the overall toxicity rate after cycle 1 as well as hematological toxicities in gBRCA1/2 pts during the taxane part of chemotherapy. Results: 209/1171 evaluated pts (17.8%) had a gBRCA1/2m (177 gBRCA1m, 33 gBRCA2m). Median age was 48yrs [21-78]. The rate of neutropenia G3-4 after cycle 1 in gBRCA1/2 wildtype (wt) pts was 35.7% vs 37.4% in gBRCA1/2m (p=0.683), 35.9% in gBRCA1m (p=1.000), 44.8% in gBRCA2m (p=0.330). gBRCA1/2 mutational status did not predict neutropenia G3-4 at univariate (OR=1.08, 95%CI 0.78-1.48 p=0.658) or multivariate analysis adjusted for age, BMI and treatment (OR=1.26, 95%CI 0.87-1.82 p=0.226). The overall rate and the rates of other hematological toxicities are shown in the table. gBRCA1/2 mutational status did also not predict for any other hematological toxicities G3-4 (univariate OR=0.94, 95%CI 0.64-1.40 p=0.773; multivariate OR=0.94, 95%CI 0.62-1.43 p=0.779). gBRCA1/2 mutational status predicted for hematological toxicities G3-4 under taxane treatment (univariate OR=1.94, 95%CI 1.35-2.77 p<0.001; multivariate OR=2.91, 95%CI 1.55-5.45 p=0.001). During taxane treatment, the overall rate of hematological toxicities G3-4 in wt pts was 43.1% (n=270) vs 59.5% (n=91) in gBRCA1/2m, p<0.001; anemia G3-4 2.6% (n=16) vs 3.3% (n=5), p=0.584; leucopenia G3-4 32.7% (n=203) vs 47.1% (n=72), p=0.001; neutropenia G3-4 35.8% (n=219) vs 49.3% (n=73), p=0.003; thrombopenia G3-4 1.4% (n=9) vs 4.6% (n=7), p=0.024; febrile neutropenia 5.9% (n=37) vs 4.6% (n=7), p=0.696. Conclusions: Overall, gBRCA1/2 mutation is not associated with a significantly higher risk of severe hematological toxicities. Under taxane therapy, pts with gBRCA1/2 demonstrate a higher rate of hematological toxicities G3-4, especially neutropenia, compared to wildtype pts, and should therefore be carefully monitored. Hematological toxicities after cycle 1wildtypegBRCA1/2mp-valuegBRCA1mp-valuegBRCA2mp-valueN%N%N%N%neutropenia G3-432635.77437.40.6836135.91.0001344.80.330febrile neutropenia171.831.41.00010.60.33726.10.130leucopenia G3-424425.83818.20.0212815.80.0041030.30.548anemia G3-420.200.01.00000.01.00000.01.000thrombopenia G3-4111.210.50.70510.60.70400.01.000any hematological toxicities G1-477782.617081.70.76314180.10.4533090.90.344any hematological toxicities G3-442846.38843.60.5337241.90.3171651.60.587 Citation Format: Jenny Furlanetto, Volker Möbus, Andreas Schneeweiss, Kerstin Rhiem, Hans Tesch, Jens-Uwe Blohmer, Kristina Lübbe, Michael Untch, Christoph Salat, Jens Huober, Peter Klare, Rita Schmutzler, Fergus J Couch, Bianca Lederer, Bernd Gerber, Dirk-Michael Zahm, Ingo Bauerfeind, Valentina Nekljudova, Claus Hanusch, Christian Jackisch, Theresa Link, Sibylle Loibl, Peter A Fasching. Germline (g)BRCA1/2 mutations (m) and hematological toxicities in patients (pts) with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) [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 P6-10-03.

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: Understanding the molecular influence of epidemiological risk factors can provide insights into breast cancer etiology and progression, and lead to better prevention efforts and treatment guidelines. The link between modifiable breast cancer risk factors and tumor genomic alterations remains unexplored. This study evaluated the association of tobacco use and alcohol consumption with somatic copy number variation (SCNV), total somatic mutation burden (TSMB), seven single base substitution (SBS) signatures (SBS1, SBS2, SBS3, SBS5, SBS13, SBS29, and SBS30) (1-3), and nine breast cancer driver mutations (CDH1, GATA3, KMT2C, MAP2K4, MAP3K1, NCOR1, PIK3CA, RUNX1, and TP53) (4,5), in a subset of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Method: Clinical and genomic data were retrieved from the TCGA database, and breast cancer risk factor information was collected from four TCGA sites; in all, 219 female breast cancer cases were included. Pre-diagnostic tobacco use was defined as never or ever; alcohol consumption was defined as drinkers or non-drinkers. Total SCNV was obtained by summing all segments with ≥|0.2|. TSMB was calculated by summing all significant mutations for each case. SBS signatures were computed using whole exome sequencing data. Analyses were conducted in all tumors (i.e., pooled) and by stratifying according to estrogen receptor (ER) status using multivariate regression, adjusting for co-variables. Results: Tobacco users had higher TSMB compared to non-users (p<0.05 all tumors). Alcohol drinkers had higher SCNV compared to non-drinkers (p<0.05 all tumors and among ER+ tumors). Tobacco use was not associated with any SBS signature. SBS3 signature (defective homologous recombination-based repair) was exclusively found in alcohol drinkers with ER- disease. No breast cancer driver mutation was associated with tobacco use or alcohol consumption. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that tobacco use and alcohol consumption can influence breast tumor biology, in particular, DNA alterations. Future larger epidemiological studies are required to confirm these findings. References 1. Vineis P, et al. Mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking in human cancer. Science. 2016;354(6312):618-22. 2. Alexandrov LB, et al. Clock-like mutational processes in human somatic cells. Nat Genet. 2015;47(12):1402-7. 3. Petljak M, Alexandrov LB. Understanding mutagenesis through delineation of mutational signatures in human cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2016;37(6):531-40. 4. Heng YJ, et al. The molecular basis of breast cancer pathologic phenotypes. J Pathol. 2017 Nov;241(3):375-91. 5. Ciriello G, et al. Comprehensive Molecular Portraits of Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Cell. 2015 Oct 10;163(2):506-19. Citation Format: Yujing J Heng, Susan E Hankinson, Jun Wang, Ludmil B Alexandrov, Christine B Ambrosone, Victor Piana de Andrade, Adam M Brufsky, Fergus J Couch, Tari A King, Francesmary Modugno, Celine M Vachon, A. Heather Eliassen, Rulla M Tamimi, Peter Kraft. Tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and breast cancer somatic genomic alterations [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 P5-08-07.

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: BRCA1/2 carriers have higher scores in the 21-gene RS assay compared to non-carriers. Little is known about the 21-gene RS patterns in women harboring germline mutations in genes outside BRCA1/2. Methods: We utilized the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study Registry to identify individuals with non-metastatic estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and clinical 21-gene RS results available. We cross-referenced this with an institutional registry of patients tested for hereditary cancer genes, either from the electronic health record or from a research study conducted using a custom QIAseq multiplex amplicon-based panel (Qiagen). The latter assay covered target regions of all coding regions for the following predisposition genes: ATM, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, ERCC2, FANCC, FANCM, MLH1, MRE11A, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51C, RAD51D, RECQL, PRSS1, STK11, TP53, and XRCC2. Student’s t-test was used to compare 21-gene RS between carriers, non-carriers, and specific carrier genes (JMP v 14.0). Results: 282 patients were identified with early stage breast cancer and 21-gene RS available, including 85 known mutation carriers and 197 non-carriers (or unknown carrier status). Germline mutations were identified in CHEK2 (n=25), BRCA2 (n=18), ATM (n=10), BRCA1 (n=5), PALB2 (n=5), TP53 (n=3), FANCM (n=2), MUTYH (n=2), PMS2 (n=2), PPM1D (n=2), RECQL (n=2), BARD1 (n=1), BLM (n=1), CDH1 (n=1), ERCC2 (n=1), FANCC (n=1), MSH6 (n=1), NBN (n=1), PRSS1 (n=1), and PTEN (n=1). In the entire cohort, the mean 21-gene RS was 20.4 in carriers and 18.0 in non-carriers (p=0.11). We performed individual analyses on specific genes identified in ≥ 5 patients (table 1). Compared to the mean RS in non-carriers (18.0), higher mean RS were observed in patients harboring BRCA1 (38.8, p=0.002), PALB2 (26.6, p=0.0724), and BRCA2 (23.2, p=0.0453). The RS in CHEK2 and ATM carriers were comparable to those of non-carriers. Conclusions: We observed differences in RS score distribution based on specific mutated breast cancer predisposition genes. Further validation of the distribution and performance of the 21-gene RS in germline carriers is needed. 21-gene RS scorenMedian RSMean≤1516-25≥26n%n%n%CHEK2251616.61248728624BRCA2182123.2211.11161.1527.8ATM101716.9330550220BRCA153635.8120120360PALB253326.6120120360None1971518.09950.367343115.7 Citation Format: Karthik V Giridhar, Grace M Choong, Siddartha Yadav, Eric C Polley, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Minetta C Liu, Matthew P Goetz, Fergus J Couch. Distribution of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX) in carriers of germline mutations associated with breast cancer predisposition syndromes [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 P5-03-07.

Abstract Background The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) study is a prospective, multi-center, observational, case-control study with longitudinal follow-up to support the development of a plasma cfDNA-based multi-cancer early detection assay. We previously reported that the fraction of tumor-derived cfDNA fragments in plasma (estimated tumor fraction [TF]) is associated with detection of multiple cancer types using a prototype whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) assay in a pre-specified substudy. In addition, detectability of breast cancer varied by hormone-receptor (HR) status: HR negative (HR-) breast cancer had a higher detection rate than the overall breast cancer cohort. Here, we performed a planned in-depth analysis of the breast cancer cohort to understand the main clinical and biological determinants of detectability using our WGBS assay. Methods Blood samples were prospectively collected from participants (pts) with newly-diagnosed, untreated breast cancer. In a pre-specified CCGA substudy, 511 (31.4%) of 1,628 pts had a clinicopathologic diagnosis of breast cancer (any stage, excluding stage 0) and a WGBS result. Pre-specified biological and clinical factors were assessed for correlation with TF: clinical stage, pathologic N stage, lesion size (by imaging), T stage, histologic grade, hormone receptor (HR) status, and proliferative rate (Ki-67 by IHC [MIB-1 clone]) via univariate and multivariate analyses. Ki-67 was obtained from pathology reports provided by enrollment sites and also assessed centrally (Mayo Clinic [Rochester, MN]). Stage-specific differences in detection rates between HR positive (HR+) and HR- breast cancers due to biological differences such as histologic grade and/or proliferative rate was also assessed. Results Of 511 pts, 94 (18.4%; 48.9% HR- and 12.3% in HR+) had WGBS-detected cancer. Higher TF was significantly associated with cancer detection (p<0.001). In univariate analyses, the variables significantly associated with TF were clinical stage, pathological N stage, and histologic grade (p<0.001 each). Primary lesion size was modestly correlated with TF (all stages combined: Spearman's correlation coefficient rs=0.4, p<0.001), and when grouped by early and late stages (stages I/II: rs=0.27, p<0.01; stages III/IV: rs=0.50, p<0.01); clinical T stage was significantly associated with TF only when all stages were combined (p<0.001). Proliferative rate (Ki-67) was positively correlated with TF at stages I/II (rs=0.29, p<0.05) but not III/IV (rs=-0.24, p=0.34); Ki-67 results obtained through Mayo were similar to that from enrollment sites (Pearson’s correlation coefficient rp=0.68, p<0.001). HR- breast cancers had significantly higher TF versus HR+ breast cancers only at stage II (p<0.001). In addition, compared to HR+ breast cancers, HR- breast cancers had a significantly higher proportion of high histologic grade (p<0.001 at stages I and II) and proliferative rate at earlier stages (p<0.05 at stages I, II, and III). In the multivariate analysis, clinical stage (stage III vs I and IV vs I) and HR status remained the most significantly associated with TF (p<0.001 each). Conclusions Using a prototype methylation-based plasma cfDNA cancer detection assay, TF was found to be associated with detection, and with clinical and biological features of breast cancer. Features routinely used to assess clinical aggressiveness (eg, HR- status and histologic grade) also demonstrated stage-specific associations with TF. Given the known relationship between TF and detection, these data suggest that clinical and biological cancer features may also provide insight into the variability of cancer detection using plasma-based cfDNA tests. Citation Format: Minetta C. Liu, Jodi M. Carter, Daniel W. Visscher, Karla Kopp, Rita Shaknovich, Xiaoji Chen, Kathryn N. Kurtzman, Shilpen Patel, Jacqueline D. Brooks, Carlo R. Cosenza, Jafi A. Lipson, Donald A. Richards, Fergus J. Couch, Zhao Dong, Hai Liu, Oliver Venn, Joerg Bredno, Eric T. Fung, Anne-Renee Hartman. Blood-based cancer detection in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA): Evaluating clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics in participants 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 P5-01-01.

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.