METHODS: In this study, we built a new model (Asian Risk Calculator) for estimating the likelihood of carrying a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, using germline BRCA genetic testing results in a cross-sectional population-based study of 8,162 Asian patients with breast cancer. We compared the model performance to existing mutation prediction models. The models were evaluated for discrimination and calibration.
RESULTS: Asian Risk Calculator included age of diagnosis, ethnicity, bilateral breast cancer, tumor biomarkers, and family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer as predictors. The inclusion of tumor grade improved significantly the model performance. The full model was calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow P value = .614) and discriminated well between BRCA and non-BRCA pathogenic variant carriers (area under receiver operating curve, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84). Addition of grade to the existing clinical genetic testing criteria targeting patients with breast cancer age younger than 45 years reduced the proportion of patients referred for genetic counseling and testing from 37% to 33% (P value = .003), thereby improving the overall efficacy.
CONCLUSION: Population-specific customization of mutation prediction models and clinical genetic testing criteria improved the accuracy of BRCA mutation prediction in Asian patients.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort.
RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar.
CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed.
RESULTS: Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients.
METHODS: MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort.
RESULTS: Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.
[Media: see text].
METHODS: From October 2008 to February 2015, we established a hospital-based cohort of ovarian cancer patients and the germline status of all 218 women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer was tested using targeted amplification and sequencing of the intron-exon junctions and exonic sequences of BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and TP53.
RESULTS: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were found in 8% (17 cases) and 3% (7 cases) of the ovarian cancer patients, respectively. Mutation carriers were diagnosed at a similar age to non-carriers, but were more likely to be Indian, have serous ovarian cancer, and have more relatives with breast or ovarian cancer. Nonetheless, 42% (10/24) of mutation carriers did not have any family history of breast or ovarian cancer and offering genetic counselling and genetic testing only to women with family history would mean that 35% (6/17) of BRCA1 mutation carriers and 57% (4/7) of BRCA2 mutation carriers would not be offered genetic testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that, similar to Caucasians, a significant proportion of Asian ovarian cancer was attributed to germline mutations in BRCA1 and to a lesser extent in BRCA2.
METHODS: Gene panel sequencing was performed for 34 known or suspected breast cancer predisposition genes, of which nine genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with breast cancer risk. Associations between PTV carriership in one or more genes and tumor characteristics were examined using multinomial logistic regression. Ten-year overall survival was estimated using Cox regression models in 6477 breast cancer patients after excluding older patients (≥75years) and stage 0 and IV disease.
RESULTS: PTV9genes carriership (n = 690) was significantly associated (p < 0.001) with more aggressive tumor characteristics including high grade (poorly vs well-differentiated, odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 3.48 [2.35-5.17], moderately vs well-differentiated 2.33 [1.56-3.49]), as well as luminal B [HER-] and triple-negative subtypes (vs luminal A 2.15 [1.58-2.92] and 2.85 [2.17-3.73], respectively), adjusted for age at diagnosis, study, and ethnicity. Associations with grade and luminal B [HER2-] subtype remained significant after excluding BRCA1/2 carriers. PTV25genes carriership (n = 289, excluding carriers of the nine genes associated with breast cancer) was not associated with tumor characteristics. However, PTV25genes carriership, but not PTV9genes carriership, was suggested to be associated with worse 10-year overall survival (hazard ratio [CI] 1.63 [1.16-2.28]).
CONCLUSIONS: PTV9genes carriership is associated with more aggressive tumors. Variants in other genes might be associated with the survival of breast cancer patients. The finding that PTV carriership is not just associated with higher breast cancer risk, but also more severe and fatal forms of the disease, suggests that genetic testing has the potential to provide additional health information and help healthy individuals make screening decisions.
Objective: To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants: A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes.
Results: Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process.
Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.
METHODS: The MassARRAY genotyping was conducted in 1,394 Chinese, 406 Malay and 310 Indian breast cancer cases and 1,071 Chinese, 167 Malay and 255 Indian healthy controls. The association of individual variant with breast cancer risk was analyzed using logistic regression model adjusted for ethnicity, age and family history.
RESULTS: Our study confirmed BRCA2 p.Ile3412Val is presented in >2% of unaffected women and is likely benign, and BRCA2 p.Ala1996Thr which is predicted to be likely pathogenic by in-silico models is presented in 2% of healthy Indian women suggesting that it may not be associated with breast cancer risk. Single-variant analysis suggests that BRCA1 p.Arg762Ser may be associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 7.4; 95% CI, 0.9-62.3; p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that BRCA2 p.Ile3412Val and p.Ala1996Thr are likely benign and highlights the need for population-specific studies to determine the likely functional significance of population-specific variants. Our study also suggests that BRCA1 p.Arg762Ser may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer but other methods or larger studies are required to determine a more precise estimate of breast cancer risk.
METHODS: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk.
RESULTS: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06-1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07-1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making.