Citations

Background: Noninvasive tests (NITs) are used to risk-stratify metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The aim was to survey global patterns of real-world use of NITs. Methods: A 38-item survey was designed by the Global NASH Council. Providers were asked about risks for advanced fibrosis, which NITs (cutoff values) they use to risk-stratify liver disease, monitor progression, and which professional guidelines they follow. Results: A total of 321 participants from 43 countries completed the survey (54% hepatologists, 28% gastroenterologists, and 18% other). Of the respondents, 85% would risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity (82%), or abnormal liver enzymes (73%). Among NITs to rule out significant or advanced fibrosis, transient elastography (TE) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) were most used, followed by NAFLD Fibrosis Score, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis, and magnetic resonance elastography. The cutoffs for ruling out significant fibrosis varied considerably between practices and from guidelines, with only 50% using TE <8 kPa, 65% using FIB-4 <1.30 for age <65, and 41% using FIB-4 <2.00 for age ≥65. Similar variability was found for ruling in advanced fibrosis, where thresholds of FIB-4 ≥2.67 and TE ≥10 kPa were used by 20% and 17%, respectively. To establish advanced fibrosis, 48% would use 2 NITs while 23% would consider 1 NIT, and 17% would confirm with liver biopsy. TE was used by >75% to monitor, and 66% would monitor (intermediate or high risk) annually. Finally, 65% follow professional guideline recommendations regarding NITs. Conclusions: In clinical practice, there is variability in NIT use and their thresholds. Additionally, there is suboptimal adherence to professional societies’ guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of resmetirom for treating metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis in patients necessitates patient selection for significant fibrosis or higher (≥F2). No existing vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) algorithm targets ≥F2. METHODS: The mAchine Learning ADvanceD fibrosis and rIsk metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis Novel predictor (ALADDIN) study addressed this gap by introducing a machine-learning-based web calculator that estimates the likelihood of significant fibrosis using routine laboratory parameters with and without VCTE. Our study included a training set of 827 patients, a testing set of 504 patients with biopsy-confirmed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease from 6 centers, and an external validation set of 1,299 patients from 9 centers. Five algorithms were compared using area under the curve (AUC) in the test set: ElasticNet, random forest, gradient boosting machines, XGBoost, and neural networks. The top 3 (random forest, gradient boosting machines, and XGBoost) formed an ensemble model. RESULTS: In the external validation set, the ALADDIN-F2-VCTE model, using routine laboratory parameters with VCTE (AUC 0.791, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.764–0.819), outperformed VCTE alone (0.745, 95% CI 0.717–0.772, P < 0.0001), FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (0.710, 0.679–0.748, P < 0.0001), and Agile-3 model (0.740, 0.710–0.770, P < 0.0001) regarding the AUC, decision curve analysis, and calibration. The ALADDIN-F2-Lab model, using routine laboratory parameters without VCTE, achieved an AUC of 0.706 (95% CI: 0.668–0.749) and outperformed Fibrosis-4, steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator, and LiverRisk scores. DISCUSSION: Along with the steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator model developed to target significant fibrosis or higher, ALADDIN-F2-VCTE (https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/ALADDIN1) uniquely supports a refined noninvasive approach to patient selection for resmetirom without the need for liver biopsy. In addition, ALADDIN-F2-Lab (https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/ALADDIN2) offers an effective alternative when VCTE is unavailable.

Abstract Cirrhosis, highly prevalent worldwide, develops after years of hepatic inflammation triggering progressive fibrosis. Currently, the main etiologies of cirrhosis are non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol‐related liver disease, although chronic hepatitis B and C infections are still major etiological factors in some areas of the world. Recent studies have shown that liver fibrosis can be assessed with relatively high accuracy noninvasively by serological tests, transient elastography, and radiological methods. These modalities may be utilized for screening for liver fibrosis in at‐risk populations. Thus far, a limited number of population‐based studies using noninvasive tests in different areas of the world indicate that a significant percentage of subjects without known liver disease (around 5% in general populations and a higher rate −18% to 27%‐in populations with risk factors for liver disease) have significant undetected liver fibrosis or established cirrhosis. Larger international studies are required to show the harms and benefits before concluding that screening for liver fibrosis should be applied to populations at risk for chronic liver diseases. Screening for liver fibrosis has the potential for changing the current approach from diagnosing chronic liver diseases late when patients have already developed complications of cirrhosis to diagnosing liver fibrosis in asymptomatic subjects providing the opportunity of preventing disease progression.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to estimate precise age-specific tubo-ovarian carcinoma (TOC) and breast cancer (BC) risks for carriers of pathogenic variants in RAD51C and RAD51D. Methods We analyzed data from 6178 families, 125 with pathogenic variants in RAD51C, and 6690 families, 60 with pathogenic variants in RAD51D. TOC and BC relative and cumulative risks were estimated using complex segregation analysis to model the cancer inheritance patterns in families while adjusting for the mode of ascertainment of each family. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Pathogenic variants in both RAD51C and RAD51D were associated with TOC (RAD51C: relative risk [RR] = 7.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.60 to 10.19; P = 5 × 10-40; RAD51D: RR = 7.60, 95% CI = 5.61 to 10.30; P = 5 × 10-39) and BC (RAD51C: RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.39 to 2.85; P = 1.55 × 10-4; RAD51D: RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.72; P = .002). For both RAD51C and RAD51D, there was a suggestion that the TOC relative risks increased with age until around age 60 years and decreased thereafter. The estimated cumulative risks of developing TOC to age 80 years were 11% (95% CI = 6% to 21%) for RAD51C and 13% (95% CI = 7% to 23%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. The estimated cumulative risks of developing BC to 80 years were 21% (95% CI = 15% to 29%) for RAD51C and 20% (95% CI = 14% to 28%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. Both TOC and BC risks for RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers varied by cancer family history and could be as high as 32–36% for TOC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with TOC, or 44–46% for BC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with BC. Conclusions These estimates will facilitate the genetic counseling of RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers and justify the incorporation of RAD51C and RAD51D into cancer risk prediction models.

Background Clinical classification of rare sequence changes identified in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is essential for appropriate genetic counselling of individuals carrying these variants. We previously showed that variant BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln in the BRCA1 transcriptional transactivation domain demonstrated equivocal results from a series of functional assays, and proposed that this variant may confer low to moderate risk of cancer. Methods Measures of genetic risk (report of family history, segregation) were assessed for 68 BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) families recruited through family cancer clinics, comparing results with 34 families carrying the previously classified pathogenic BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp (R1699W) mutation at the same residue, and to 243 breast cancer families with no BRCA1 pathogenic mutation (BRCA-X). Results Comparison of BRCA1 carrier prediction scores of probands using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool revealed that BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln variant carriers had family histories that were less ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp mutation carriers (p<0.00001), but more ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA-X families (p=0.0004). Further, modified segregation analysis of the subset of 30 families with additional genotyping showed that BRCA1 c.5096G >A p.Arg1699Gln had reduced penetrance compared with the average truncating BRCA1 mutation penetrance (p=0.0002), with estimated cumulative risks to age 70 of breast or ovarian cancer of 24%. Conclusions Our results provide substantial evidence that the BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) variant, demonstrating ambiguous functional deficiency across multiple assays, is associated with intermediate risk of breast and ovarian cancer, highlighting challenges for risk modelling and clinical management of patients of this and other potential moderate-risk variants.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3). Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.