Outcomes After Breast Radiation Therapy in a Diverse Patient Cohort With a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation.

PURPOSE: BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) mutations confer radiation sensitivity preclinically, but there are limited data regarding breast cancer outcomes after radiation therapy (RT) among patients with documented BRCA1/2 PV mutations versus no PV mutations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective cohort study included women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer who received definitive surgery and RT and underwent BRCA1/2 genetic evaluation at the The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR), disease-specific death (DSD), toxicities, and second cancers were compared by BRCA1/2 PV status. RESULTS: Of the 2213 women who underwent BRCA1/2 testing, 63% self-reported their race as White, 13.6% as Black/African American, 17.6% as Hispanic, and 5.8% as Asian/American Indian/Alaska Native; 124 had BRCA1 and 100 had BRCA2 mutations; and 1394 (63%) received regional nodal RT. The median follow-up time for all patients was 7.4 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-7.7 years). No differences were found between the groups with and without BRCA1/2 PV mutations in 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR (with mutations: 11.6% [95% CI, 7.0%-17.6%]; without mutations: 6.6% [95% CI, 5.3%-8.0%]; P = .466) and DSD (with mutations: 12.3% [95% CI, 8.0%-17.7%]; without mutations: 13.8% [95% CI, 12.0%-15.8%]; P = .716). On multivariable analysis, BRCA1/2 status was not associated with LRR or DSD, but Black/African American patients (P = .036) and Asians/American Indians/Alaska Native patients (P = .002) were at higher risk of LRR compared with White patients, and Black/African American patients were at higher risk of DSD versus White patients (P = .004). No in-field, nonbreast second cancers were observed in the BRCA1/2 PV group. Rates of acute and late grade ≥3 radiation-related toxicity in the BCRA1/2 PV group were 5.4% (n = 12) and 0.4% (n = 1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic outcomes in a diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer who had a germline BRCA1/2 PV mutation and were treated with RT were similar to those of patients with no mutation, supporting the use of RT according to standard indications in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 PV mutation.

Breast Radiation Therapy-Related Treatment Outcomes in Patients With or Without Germline Mutations on Multigene Panel Testing.

PURPOSE: Multigene panel testing has increased the detection of germline mutations in patients with breast cancer. The implications of using radiation therapy (RT) to treat patients with pathogenic variant (PV) mutations are not well understood and have been studied mostly in women with only BRCA1 or BRCA2 PVs. We analyzed oncologic outcomes and toxicity after adjuvant RT in a contemporary, diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer who underwent genetic panel testing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 286 women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed from 1995 to 2017 who underwent surgery, breast or chest wall RT with or without regional nodal irradiation, multigene panel testing, and evaluation at a large cancer center's genetic screening program. We evaluated rates of overall survival, locoregional recurrence, disease-specific death, and radiation-related toxicities in 3 groups: BRCA1/2 PV carriers, non-BRCA1/2 PV carriers, and patients without PV mutations. RESULTS: PVs were detected in 25.2% of the cohort (12.6% BRCA1/2 and 12.6% non-BRCA1/2). The most commonly detected non-BRCA1/2 mutated genes were ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, CDH1, TP53, and PTEN. The median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 4.4 years (95% confidence interval, 3.8-4.9 years). No differences were found in overall survival, locoregional recurrence, or disease-specific death between groups (P > .1 for all). Acute and late toxicities were comparable across groups. CONCLUSION: Oncologic and toxicity outcomes after RT in women with PV germline mutations detected by multigene pane testing are similar to those in patients without detectable mutations, supporting the use of adjuvant RT as a standard of care when indicated.

Cytoplasmic Cyclin E Expression Predicts for Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) has been shown to be associated with favorable outcomes in breast cancer. Predictors of pCR could be useful in guiding treatment decisions regarding neoadjuvant therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate cyclin E as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. METHODS: Patients (n = 285) with stage II-III breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective study and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with anthracyclines, taxanes, or combination of the two. Pretreatment biopsies from 190 patients and surgical specimens following chemotherapy from 192 patients were available for immunohistochemical analysis. Clinical and pathologic responses were recorded and associated with presence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, cyclin E, adipophilin, programmed cell death-ligand 1, and elastase staining and other patient, tumor and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The pCR rate was significantly lower in patients with cytoplasmic cyclin E staining compared with those who had no cyclin E expression (16.1% vs 38.9%, P = 0.0005). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the odds of pCR for patients who had cytoplasmic negative tumors was 9.35 times (P value < 0.0001) that compared with patients with cytoplasmic positive tumors after adjusting for ER, PR, and HER2 status. Cytoplasmic cyclin E expression also predicts long-term outcome and is associated with reduced disease free, recurrence free, and overall survival rates, independent of increased pretreatment tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. CONCLUSIONS: Cyclin E independently predicted response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Hence, its routine immunohistochemical analysis could be used clinically to identify those breast cancer patients expected to have a poor response to anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy.

Prospective Evaluation of Universal BRCA Testing for Women With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited published literature exists on women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) diagnosed over the age of 60 years with breast cancer gene (BRCA) pathogenic variants. Our study determined whether the rate of BRCA pathogenic variants in a prospective cohort of TNBC patients outside the definition of current clinical genetic testing (GT) guidelines warrants a change in recommendations. METHODS: A prospective study of 395 women with TNBC underwent genetic counseling and 380 (96.2%) underwent clinical BRCA GT regardless of age of diagnosis beginning January 2014 to October 2015 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. TNBC patients older than 60 years who did not meet clinical GT guidelines had comprehensive sequencing and large rearrangement GT as part of the research protocol. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 380 (13.4%) women with TNBC who underwent clinical BRCA GT were BRCA positive. Of the 86 patients diagnosed at age over 60 years and underwent GT, only two (2.3%) were positive for BRCA. These two patients would have met clinical testing criteria due to family or ancestral history. CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not support universal BRCA testing for TNBC patients diagnosed older than 60 years as their only risk factor for a BRCA pathogenic variant. Both of the positive BRCA patients older than 60 years identified would have met current National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for testing. Therefore, our study demonstrates that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines provide sufficient criteria for identifying BRCA pathogenic variants in women with TNBC at 60 years or younger.

Inflammatory breast cancer: a proposed conceptual shift in the UICC-AJCC TNM staging system.

In the absence of histological criteria that distinguish between inflammatory and non-inflammatory breast cancer, diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer relies entirely on the existence of clinical criteria as outlined by the TNM classification. This classification restricts patients presenting with clinical criteria characteristic of inflammatory breast cancer to subcategory T4d, which immediately relegates all patients with non-metastatic inflammatory breast cancer to stage 3, regardless of tumour size or nodal spread. Patients who present with metastatic disease are consigned to stage 4, and the TNM classification does not distinguish patients on the basis of the presence of inflammatory criteria. Evidence by our group and others suggests that patients with inflammatory breast cancer have significantly reduced overall survival among those who present with distant metastasis at diagnosis (stage 4). In light of these results, this Personal View addresses whether the current TNM staging classification accurately represents a distinction between patients with inflammatory and those with non-inflammatory breast cancer.

Evaluation of BRCAPRO Risk Assessment Model in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In situ Who Underwent Clinical BRCA Genetic Testing.

The authors retrospectively aimed to determine which of the following three scenarios, related to DCIS entry into BRCAPRO, predicted BRCA mutation status more accurately: (1) DCIS as an invasive breast cancer (IBC) entered using the actual age of diagnosis, (2) DCIS as IBC entered with 10 years added to the actual age of diagnosis, and (3) DCIS entered as no cancer. Of the 85 DCIS patients included in the study, 19% (n = 16) tested positive for a BRCA mutation, and 81% (n = 69) tested negative. DCIS patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation had a higher BRCAPRO risk estimation (34.61%) than patients who tested negative (11.4%) when DCIS was entered at the actual age of diagnosis. When DCIS was entered with 10 years added to the actual age at diagnosis, the BRCAPRO estimate was still higher amongst BRCA positive patients (25.4%) than BRCA negative patients (7.1%). When DCIS was entered as no cancer, the BRCAPRO estimate remained higher among BRCA positive patients (2.56%) than BRCA negative patents (1.98%). In terms of accuracy of BRCA positivity, there was no statistically significant difference between DCIS at age at diagnosis, DCIS at 10 years later than age at diagnosis, and DCIS entered as no cancer (AUC = 0.77, 0.784, 0.75, respectively: p = 0.60). Our results indicate that regardless of entry approach into BRCAPRO, there were no significant differences in predicting BRCA mutation in patients with DCIS.

Predictors that Influence Election of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy among Women with Ductal Carcinoma in Situ who are BRCA-Negative.

The authors retrospectively examined the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rate among 100 women with ductal carcinoma in situ who are BRCA negative. Of 100 women with ductal carcinoma in situ, 31 elected contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Factors associated with increased likelihood of undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among this cohort were: family history of ovarian cancer, marital status, reconstruction, mastectomy of the affected breast, and tamoxifen use.

Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2,713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination; however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Thus, we conclude that simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

Assessing the added value of breast tumor markers in genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

The BRCAPRO model estimates carrier probabilities for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and was recently enhanced to use estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status of breast cancer. No independent assessment of the added value of these markers exists. Moreover, earlier versions of BRCAPRO did not use human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2/neu) status of breast cancer. Here, we incorporate Her-2/neu in BRCAPRO and validate all the markers. We trained the enhanced model on 406 germline tested individuals, and validated on a separate clinical cohort of 796 individuals for whom test results and family history are available. For model-building, we estimated joint probabilities of ER, PR, and Her-2/neu status for carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. For validation, we obtained BRCAPRO predictions with and without markers. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and correct reclassification rates. The AUC for predicting BRCA1 status among individuals who are carriers of at least one mutation improved when ER and PR were used. The AUC for predicting the presence of either mutation improved when Her-2/neu was added. Use of markers also produced highly significant correct reclassification improvements in both cases. Breast tumor markers are useful for prediction of BRCA1/2 mutation status. ER and PR improve discrimination between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers while Her-2/neu helps discriminate between carriers and non-carriers, particularly among women who are ER positive and Her-2/neu negative. These results support the use of the enhanced version of BRCAPRO in clinical settings.