Search

Amyloidosis is a localized or systemic process where extracellular insoluble plasma protein fibers are deposited into tissues. Localized amyloidosis is rare and curable by surgical resection. While the head and neck region represents 19% of localized amyloidosis cases, only one other case of bilateral involvement of the pharyngeal tonsils has been published in the international literature. We report a case of asymptomatic amyloidosis isolated to the bilateral palatine tonsils and a cervical lymph node in a 59-year-old male. Systemic amyloidosis was ruled out through multidisciplinary consultation, and resection of the masses was performed. This represents the second reported case of bilateral tonsillar amyloidosis.

Breast and prostate cancer risks; Pathogenic variant Riscos de càncer de mama i pròstata; Variants patogèniques Riesgos de cáncer de mama y próstata; Variantes patogénicas Background Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management. The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A20861 and PPRPGM-Nov20\100002. The research leading to these results has received funding from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) under IG 2018 - ID. 21389 and the Italian League for the Fight Against Cancer (LILT) under IG 2019 projects, P.I. Ottini Laura and Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research-Dipartimenti di Eccellenza-L. 232/2016. CIMBA: GCT is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Fellow. iCOGS and OncoArray data: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation and the Ontario Research Fund. Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR): UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC): Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). City of Hope - Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network (COH-CCGCRN): Research reported in this publication was supported by the NCI of the NIH under grant No. R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the NCI and the Office of the Director, NIH. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 No.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’) to S. Manoukian. Associazione CAOS Varese to M.G. Tibiletti. AIRC (IG2015 No.16732) to P. Peterlongo. National Centre for Scientific Research Demokritos (DEMOKRITOS): European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. German Cancer Research Center (DFKZ): German Cancer Research Center. Epidemiological Study of Familial Breast Cancer (EMBRACE): Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC): The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. AKG was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545 and R01 CA140323), The Kansas Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professor. Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica (FPGMX): FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). German Familial Breast Group (GC-HBOC): German Cancer Aid (grant No. 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE—Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project No. 713-241202, No. 713-241202, No. 14505/2470, and No. 14575/2470). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). Georgetown University (GEORGETOWN): the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. Ghent University Hospital (G-FAST): Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study the Netherlands (HEBON): the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HEBON thanks the registration teams of Dutch Cancer Registry (IKNL; S. Siesling, J. Verloop) and the Dutch Pathology database (PALGA; L. Overbeek) for part of the data collection. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO): The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “FEDER, una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. Iceland Landspitali – University Hospital (ILUH): Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program—grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade—grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto Breast Cancer Study (IPOBCS): Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study (KOHBRA): the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). Mayo Clinic (MAYO): NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. McGill University (MCGILL): Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MH CZ—DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS—NPS I—LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). Women’s College Research Institute Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study (NAROD): 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): the Intramural Research Program of the US NCI, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCG): Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Università di Pisa (PBCS): AIRC [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. Sheba Medical Centre (SMC): the Israeli Cancer Association. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): the Swedish Cancer Society. University of Chicago (UCHICAGO): NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women’s Cancer Research Alliance and the Breast Cancer research Foundation. OIO is an American Cancer Society (ACS) Clinical Research Professor. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (UKFOCR): Cancer Research UK. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): NIH (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855); Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. Cancer Family Registry University of Pittsburg (UPITT/MWH): Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women’s Cancer Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (WCP): Dr Karlan is funded by the ACS Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. TN-D is a recipient of a Career Development Fellow from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia, ECF-17-001).

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with an increased lifetime risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and more recently have been associated with increased risk of biliary tract cancers (BTC). This study assessed the prevalence, age and gender distribution of PDAC/BTC cases in families known to carry a BRCA1/2 PV compared to those of the Irish population. A review of all families referred to a national genetics clinic from 09/11/1997 to 01/06/2018 was performed. The BOADICEA algorithm was used to estimate the probability that an untested relative of a known BRCA1/2 PV carrier with PDAC was a carrier. We reviewed 3252 family pedigrees, 1193 contained a proband who underwent testing for BRCA1/2 based on Manchester score ≥ 15. Among 128 BRCA2 PV-positive families, 27 (21%) contained a 1st/2nd/3rd-degree relative with PDAC, while of 116 BRCA1 PV-positive families, 11 (9%) contained a 1st/2nd/3rd-degree relative with PDAC. Within these 38 families, 25 patients with PDAC had ≥ 50% likelihood of being a BRCA1/2 PV carrier. This cohort had a median age at diagnosis of 55 years (range 33–75), with a mean (55 years) lower than 8364 patients with PDAC identified through the National Cancer Registry of Ireland (71 years, p

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Prognosis). The objectives are as follows: Primary objectives Identify all available breast cancer risk prediction models that include family history of breast cancer as a predictor. Qualitatively summarise the characteristics of these risk prediction models. Appraise the predictive accuracy (validation, discrimination and calibration) of these models. Compare model performance by meta‐analysing model performance statistics across studies, if feasible. Appraise the predictive accuracy (validation, discrimination and calibration) of models validated (or developed) in ‘elevated risk’ women (i.e. those at increased risk of developing breast cancer based on their family history). We anticipate that relevant studies may include (a) participants enrolled in a screening programme; (b) those with at least one first‐degree relative with breast cancer; (c) those attending a family risk service. Compare model performance in ‘elevated risk’ women by meta‐analysing model performance statistics across studies on model development or validation in ‘elevated risk’ women if feasible. Make recommendations for breast cancer risk prediction models that may be useful for patient management in the breast cancer family risk setting. The review question has been outlined according to the PICOTS system (Debray 2017) in Table 1. Investigation of sources of heterogeneity between studies As with all meta‐analysis it is important to understand the cause of between‐study heterogeneity in model performance. It is important to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in discrimination and calibration across validation studies, to understand when the model performance remains adequate and when it may require further improvements (Debray 2017). Heterogeneity may be due to differences in the study (e.g. in terms of design, follow‐up time, or outcome definition), differences in the statistical analysis or characteristics related to selective reporting and publication (e.g. risk of bias, study size) and/or populations e.g. case‐mix or baseline risk differences. We anticipate that the most relevant sources of heterogeneity between studies will be differences in study population/case‐mix. From scoping the literature it is apparent that diversity exists in populations used in breast cancer risk prediction model development and validation; for example, populations differed in terms of ethnicity, geographical location and baseline risk category, all of which could contribute to differences in model performance between validation studies. To a lesser extent, we anticipate that outcome definition may be a source of heterogeneity between studies with some studies defining breast cancer as all breast cancer (invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)) and others potentially defining breast cancer as invasive breast cancer only. These sources of heterogeneity will be investigated and reported in the review.

Anaesthetists are at high risk from blood-borne pathogens. Universal Precautions (UP) include the routine use of appropriate barrier precautions and techniques to reduce the likelihood of exposure to blood, body fluids and tissues that may contain pathogens. The compliance of Irish anaesthetists with these precautions has not been studied. To study the attitudes of Irish anaesthetists to Universal Precautions. A postal questionnaire was sent to 210 anaesthetists currently practising in Ireland. The questionnaire was based on a model used in Australia and New Zealand. There was a 50% response rate to the survey. Only 15% of respondents had taken a risk history from a patient in the preceding four weeks. Resheathing of needles was commonplace. The effectiveness of hepatitis B immunisation was rarely checked and only 66% of respondents believe implementation of Universal Precautions to be practical. Irish anaesthetists comply poorly with Universal Precautions.

e14050 Background: The incidence of rectal cancer in patients under 40 years is increasing; however, the impact of age ≤40 at diagnosis of CRC on outcome is unclear. We reviewed the records of youn...

531 Background: The impact of age ≤ 40 at diagnosis of colorectal cancer on outcome is unclear. The higher incidence of tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) in young patients may confound the estimation of survival in this population due to the more favorable biology associated with MSI cancers. Methods: All pts diagnosed with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma at ≤ 40 years old between Jan 2000-Jan 2010 were identified from the institutional database with prior IRB approval. Clinical and pathology records were reviewed. Only patients with synchronous metastases at presentation were included. Immunohistochemistry for DNA mismatch repair proteins (MMR) was performed in 40 pts of whom 5 had loss of MMR and were excluded from the analysis. Results: 185 pts were identified; median age at diagnosis was 36 years (range 18–40) Primary site was in the right colon in 50 cases (27%). All pts received at least one line of systemic chemotherapy. For pts receiving systemic therapy median survival was 23.4 months and for those receiving hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) plus systemic the median survival was 48.2 months. Median survival for those who underwent liver resection (78 pts) was 54.6 months. Other factors such as race, post partum and KRAS mutation impacted on survival as shown below. Conclusions: Overall survival in this cohort of young pts is similar to that observed in clinical trials of modern combination therapy for metastatic CRC. African American race, presence of a KRAS mutation, and presentation following pregnancy may be associated with reduced survival in this group. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

5072 Background: Suntinib has demonstrated activity in the second-line setting for pts with advanced UC when administered on a 4 week on/2 week off schedule. This study was designed to evaluate an alternative 37.5 mg/day continuous dosing schedule for sunitinib in the same setting. Methods: The primary objectives of this single institution phase II study of sunitinib in pts with UC who have failed prior chemotherapy were: 1) to determine the response rate (by RECIST); and 2) to evaluate toxicity. Secondary endpoints include: 1) correlation of response and toxicity with HIF and mTOR pathway marker expression; and 2) phamacokinetics. Pts may not have received >4 prior cytotoxic agents. Pts received sunitinib 37.5 mg/day continuous dosing.. Response was assessed after each of the initial 4 cycles and every other cycle thereafter. A minimax 2-stage design was used (maximal 32 pts). Results: 31 pts (21 M, 10 F) with a median age of 68 yrs and median KPS of 90 were enrolled between 10/15/07 and 12/18/08. Primary sites included bladder (28), and renal pelvis (3). Prior therapy included 1 pt with 1 drug, 19 pts with 2, 7 with 3 and 4 with 4. 25 pts had visceral metastases and 6 pts had lymph node only metastases. 25 pts were evaluable for response after completing at least 1 cycle. One pt achieved PR, 12 pts had SD, 12 had PD, 2 are too early to assess for response, and 4 patients did not complete cycle 1 (2 related to toxicity, and 2 related to non-treatment-related deaths). Radiographic regression was seen in liver, lung, soft tissue and lymph nodes. With a median follow up of 4 months, median progression free survival was 2 months (95% CI, 1 - 4 months) and median overall survival was 7 months (95% CI, 4 months - not achieved). Clinically significant toxicity (Grade 3/4) included: abdominal pain (1), anorexia (1), diarrhea (1), fatigue (4), hand and foot syndrome (2), hemorrhage (2), hypertension (2), mucositis (2), thrombosis (2), and emesis (1). Conclusions: Sunitinib has modest activity when administered on a 37.5 mg continuous dosing schedule to patients with relapsed or refractory UC with a similar toxicity profile to the 50 mg in the 4 /2 schedule. Upcoming trials will evaluate sunitinib in combination with standard chemotherapy in pts with UC. [Table: see text]