Citations

Testicular cancer is relatively uncommon and accounts for <1% of all male tumors. However, it is the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the global incidence has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Several risk factors for testicular cancer have been identified, including personal or family history of testicular cancer and cryptorchidism. Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) comprise 95% of malignant tumors arising in the testes and are categorized into 2 main histologic subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Although nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor subtype, 5-year survival rates exceed 70% with current treatment options, even in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the primary treatment for most patients with testicular GCTs. Postorchiectomy management is dictated by stage, histology, and risk classification; treatment options for nonseminoma include surveillance, systemic therapy, and nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Although rarely occurring, prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor, with >50% of patients dying within 1 year of diagnosis. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer focuses on recommendations for the management of adult patients with nonseminomatous GCTs.

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

5079 Background: Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP did not increase 3-year biochemical progression free-survival (bPFS) compared to RP alone in men with CLHRPC. However, there is evidence that bPFS and overall survival over time was improved. In the current analysis we assessed whether CHT followed by RP improved pathological specimen features compared to RP alone. Methods: CALGB 90203 (Alliance) is a Phase III study which randomly assigned, in a 1:1 fashion, men with CLHRPC [biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 4 or 5 or Kattan pre-op nomogram bPFS < 60%] to RP alone or RP plus neoadjuvant CHT [androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles)]. We conducted an exploratory analysis comparing histologic findings, determined at the treating center, in the RP specimens of men receiving CHT plus RP and men treated with RP alone. We used the Chi-square test, with P-values adjusted by the Holm method for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 788 men (median age, 62; range: 32-83 years) were randomized, with 738 ultimately undergoing RP. There was no difference in pathologic GGG (Table). Men treated with neoadjuvant CHT had a lower pathologic T-stage and lower likelihood of having seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive pelvic lymph nodes, or positive surgical margins (SM) (Table). Conclusions: Most pathologic features in the RP specimen were improved in men receiving neoadjuvant CHT compared to RP alone. The relationship between pathologic changes and the development of metastasis and survival require further analysis. RP pathologic outcomes. Summary statistics are calculated for the number of patients with non-missing data for each characteristic. Clinical trial information: NCT00430183. [Table: see text]

3501 Background: 6m of oxaliplatin-based treatment is an option as adj chemotherapy for patients with high risk stage II CC (T4, inadequate nodal harvest, poorly differentiated, obstruction, perforation or vascular/perineural invasion). The IDEA collaboration showed shorter treatment duration to be appropriate for most pts with stage III colon cancer. The results of the 4 IDEA studies with stage II pts are presented here. Methods: A prospective, pre-planned pooled analysis of high-risk stage II patients from 4 concurrently conducted randomized phase III trials (SCOT, TOSCA, ACHIEVE-2, HORG) was performed to evaluate non-inferiority (NI) of 3m compared with 6m (ref) of adj FOLFOX/CAPOX (regimen preselected, not randomized). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), NI was to be declared if the 2-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for DFS hazard ratio (HR 3m v 6m) estimated by a stratified Cox model was below 1.2. 542 DFS events were required to provide 80% power to declare NI. NI was also examined within regimen, T4 (Yes v No) and inadequate nodal harvest (Yes v No) as pre-planned subgroups. Results: The primary analysis included 3273 randomised pts of which 1254 had FOLFOX and 2019 had CAPOX. There were 552 events and the median follow-up was 60.2 m. There was significantly less grade 3-5 toxicity with 3m treatment (p < .0001). The 5-year DFS rate was 80.7% and 84.0% for 3m and 6m treatment with an estimated DFS HR of 1.18 (80% CI:1.05-1.31, p for NI = 0.404). For CAPOX the estimated HR was 1.02 (80% CI: 0.88-1.17, p for NI = 0.087) and for FOLFOX the estimated HR was 1.42 (80% CI: 1.19-1.70, p for NI = 0.894). The test for interaction between duration and regimen was not statistically significant (p = .174 adjusted for multiple testing) but was stronger than that for the other subgroups examined. Conclusions: In the overall population non-inferiority for 3m adj treatment in pts with high-risk stage II CC was not shown. As with the stage III population the choice of adj regimen appears important (although this did not reach statistical significance) with a small difference in DFS between 3 and 6 m treatment if CAPOX is used. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN59757862.

Abstract DNA methylation is instrumental for gene regulation. Global changes in the epigenetic landscape have been recognized as a hallmark of cancer. However, the role of DNA methylation in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. In this study, high-density genetic and DNA methylation data in white blood cells from the Framingham Heart Study (N = 1,595) were used to build genetic models to predict DNA methylation levels. These prediction models were then applied to the summary statistics of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of ovarian cancer including 22,406 EOC cases and 40,941 controls to investigate genetically predicted DNA methylation levels in association with EOC risk. Among 62,938 CpG sites investigated, genetically predicted methylation levels at 89 CpG were significantly associated with EOC risk at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P &lt; 7.94 × 10−7. Of them, 87 were located at GWAS-identified EOC susceptibility regions and two resided in a genomic region not previously reported to be associated with EOC risk. Integrative analyses of genetic, methylation, and gene expression data identified consistent directions of associations across 12 CpG, five genes, and EOC risk, suggesting that methylation at these 12 CpG may influence EOC risk by regulating expression of these five genes, namely MAPT, HOXB3, ABHD8, ARHGAP27, and SKAP1. We identified novel DNA methylation markers associated with EOC risk and propose that methylation at multiple CpG may affect EOC risk via regulation of gene expression. Significance: Identification of novel DNA methylation markers associated with EOC risk suggests that methylation at multiple CpG may affect EOC risk through regulation of gene expression.

LBA1 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 4, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.