Search

Mutations in DNA damage response (DDR) factors are associated with human infertility, which affects up to 15% of the population. The DDR is required during germ cell development and meiosis. One pathway implicated in human fertility is DNA translesion synthesis (TLS), which allows replication impediments to be bypassed. We find that TLS is essential for pre-meiotic germ cell development in the embryo. Loss of the central TLS component, REV1, significantly inhibits the induction of human PGC-like cells (hPGCLCs). This is recapitulated in mice, where deficiencies in TLS initiation (Rev1 -/- or Pcna K164R/K164R ) or extension (Rev7  -/- ) result in a > 150-fold reduction in the number of primordial germ cells (PGCs) and complete sterility. In contrast, the absence of TLS does not impact the growth, function, or homeostasis of somatic tissues. Surprisingly, we find a complete failure in both activation of the germ cell transcriptional program and in DNA demethylation, a critical step in germline epigenetic reprogramming. Our findings show that for normal fertility, DNA repair is required not only for meiotic recombination but for progression through the earliest stages of germ cell development in mammals., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Evidence from literature, including the BRIDGES study, indicates that germline protein truncating variants (PTVs) in FANCM confer moderately increased risk of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), especially for women with a family history of the disease. Association between FANCM missense variants (MVs) and breast cancer risk has been postulated. In this study, we further used the BRIDGES study to test 689 FANCM MVs for association with breast cancer risk, overall and in ER-negative and TNBC subtypes, in 39,885 cases (7566 selected for family history) and 35,271 controls of European ancestry. Sixteen common MVs were tested individually; the remaining rare 673 MVs were tested by burden analyses considering their position and pathogenicity score. We also conducted a meta-analysis of our results and those from published studies. We did not find evidence for association for any of the 16 variants individually tested. The rare MVs were significantly associated with increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer by burden analysis comparing familial cases to controls (OR = 1.48; 95% CI 1.07-2.04; P = 0.017). Higher ORs were found for the subgroup of MVs located in functional domains or predicted to be pathogenic. The meta-analysis indicated that FANCM MVs overall are associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.08-1.38; P = 0.002). Our results support the definition from previous analyses of FANCM as a moderate-risk breast cancer gene and provide evidence that FANCM MVs could be low/moderate risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Further genetic and functional analyses are necessary to clarify better the increased risks due to FANCM MVs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Evidence linking coding germline variants in breast cancer (BC)-susceptibility genes other than BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2 with contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the association of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) and rare missense variants (MSVs) in nine known (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) and 25 suspected BC-susceptibility genes with CBC risk and BCSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox regression models. Analyses included 34,401 women of European ancestry diagnosed with BC, including 676 CBCs and 3,449 BC deaths; the median follow-up was 10.9 years. Subtype analyses were based on estrogen receptor (ER) status of the first BC. Combined PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 and PALB2 were associated with increased CBC risk [HRs (95% CIs): 2.88 (1.70-4.87), 2.31 (1.39-3.85), 8.29 (2.53-27.21), 2.25 (1.55-3.27), and 2.67 (1.33-5.35), respectively]. The strongest evidence of association with BCSS was for PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA2 (ER-positive BC) and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 [HRs (95% CIs): 1.53 (1.13-2.07), 2.08 (0.95-4.57), and 1.39 (1.13-1.72), respectively, after adjusting for tumor characteristics and treatment]. HRs were essentially unchanged when censoring for CBC, suggesting that these associations are not completely explained by increased CBC risk, tumor characteristics, or treatment. There was limited evidence of associations of PTVs and/or rare MSVs with CBC risk or BCSS for the 25 suspected BC genes. The CBC findings are relevant to treatment decisions, follow-up, and screening after BC diagnosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests B.D. is a stockholder of Roche, Vaccitech and EQRx. P.A.F. conducts research funded by Amgen, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. He received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. D.F.E. is an associate editor at The American Journal of Human Genetics (AJHG)., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints., Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334., Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab., Interpretation: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TP reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; research funding paid to institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. PT reports research funding from MSD. SHP reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Janssen Oncology and Lilly; and research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical. Bxports having served as a consultant or adviser for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer; research funding paid to institution from Calithera Biosciences, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; serving as a speaker for Eisai, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from EUSA Pharma and Ipsen. TF reports research funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and MSD; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Roche. SNS reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Bicycle Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boxer Capital, Duke Street Bio, Eisai, Ellipses Pharma, EMD Serono, EUSA Pharma, MedAnnex, MSD, Pfizer, and Vaccitech; having served as a speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, and Ipsen; research funding paid to institution from BiolineRx, BioNTech, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, MSD, Nouscom, Nucana, Roche, Sapience Therapeutics, Scancell, Sierra Oncology, and Verastem; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, and Ipsen. HG reports personal speaker fees from MSD; and personal advisory fees from MSD, Roche, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Ipsen. JLL reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer; having served as an advisr or consultant for Alteogen, AstraZeneca, BMS Korea, GI Innovation, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis; research funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer Schering Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Seattle Genetics; and owns stock in Amgen, BeiGene, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Myovant Sciences, and Zymeworks. NS reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, MSD, and Roche; having served as a speaker for Pfizer; and research funding from MSD. AT-V reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; having served as a consultant for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding paid to institution from Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. MG-G reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Amgen, Astellas Medivation, AstraZeneca, Bayer/Onyx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. MM reports research funding from MSD. NBH reports having served as a consultant or adviser for AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; and has provided expert testimony for Lilly. PS reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; research funding paid to institution from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiltern, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Merrimack, MSD, Parexel, PAREXEL/Puma Biotechnology, PPD Global, Regeneron, and Tesaro; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pierre Fabre and Roche. JEB and LX are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. KI is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, and owns stock in Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. DIQ reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and US Biotest; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, MSD, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics; research funding paid to institution from Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Exelexis, Merck, and Roche. TKC reports institutional and personal support, paid and unpaid support for research, participating in advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, UpToDate, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, and MJH), outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations, immunotherapy response and toxicity, and ctDNA; equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio; being part of committees in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, GU Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, Academic and Community Cancer Research United, and KidneyCAN; having mentored several non-US citizens on research projects partly funded by non-US sources; and additional independent funding from drug companies or royalties for research around the subject matter paid to institution. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Primary cutaneous and mucosal melanoma shows a wide histological spectrum. The correct diagnosis depends upon the demonstration of melanocytic differentiation by recognition of an associated in-situ component or immunohistochemical evidence of a melanocytic phenotype using conventional melanocytic markers, such as S-100, SOX10, Melan-A and HMB-45. Exceptionally, melanomas lose their melanocytic phenotype, at least focally, and show differentiation towards other lineages. Review of the literature shows that de- and trans-differentiation in melanoma is rare but probably under-recognised and under-reported. These often large and frequently ulcerated tumours affect adults and show a wide anatomical distribution, including mucosal sites, although there is a predilection for sun-damaged skin of the head and neck. Histologically, the tumours are biphasic and contain a pre-existing conventional melanoma. The de-differentiated component closely resembles atypical fibroxanthoma, both morphologically and immunohistochemically. Trans-differentiated melanoma may show rhabdomyosarcomatous or spindle cell carcinomatous features. Undifferentiated melanomas are similar tumours in which the conventional melanoma component is absent. Their diagnosis depends entirely upon the clinical context and identification of a classical melanoma driver gene mutation, i.e. BRAF V600E. The diagnosis of these rare and unusual tumours is challenging, and requires thorough tumour sampling and recognition of the background of a pre-existing but often focal conventional melanoma together with molecular analysis., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been demonstrated to identify women of European, Asian, and Latino ancestry at elevated risk of developing breast cancer (BC). We evaluated the performance of existing PRSs trained in European ancestry populations among women of African ancestry., Methods: We assembled genotype data for women of African ancestry, including 9241 case subjects and 10 193 control subjects. We evaluated associations of 179- and 313-variant PRSs with overall and subtype-specific BC risk. PRS discriminatory accuracy was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We also evaluated a recalibrated PRS, replacing the index variant with variants in each region that better captured risk in women of African ancestry and estimated lifetime absolute risk of BC in African Americans by PRS category., Results: For overall BC, the odds ratio per SD of the 313-variant PRS (PRS313) was 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.571 (95% CI = 0.562 to 0.579). Compared with women with average risk (40th-60th PRS percentile), women in the top decile of PRS313 had a 1.54-fold increased risk (95% CI = 1.38-fold to 1.72-fold). By age 85 years, the absolute risk of overall BC was 19.6% for African American women in the top 1% of PRS313 and 6.7% for those in the lowest 1%. The recalibrated PRS did not improve BC risk prediction., Conclusion: The PRSs stratify BC risk in women of African ancestry, with attenuated performance compared with that reported in European, Asian, and Latina populations. Future work is needed to improve BC risk stratification for women of African ancestry., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We evaluated the joint associations between a new 313-variant PRS (PRS313) and questionnaire-based breast cancer risk factors for women of European ancestry, using 72 284 cases and 80 354 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Interactions were evaluated using standard logistic regression and a newly developed case-only method for breast cancer risk overall and by estrogen receptor status. After accounting for multiple testing, we did not find evidence that per-standard deviation PRS313 odds ratio differed across strata defined by individual risk factors. Goodness-of-fit tests did not reject the assumption of a multiplicative model between PRS313 and each risk factor. Variation in projected absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer associated with classical risk factors was greater for women with higher genetic risk (PRS313 and family history) and, on average, 17.5% higher in the highest vs lowest deciles of genetic risk. These findings have implications for risk prevention for women at increased risk of breast cancer., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Combination treatments targeting the MEK-ERK pathway and checkpoint inhibitors have improved overall survival in melanoma. Resistance to treatment especially in the brain remains challenging, and rare disease subtypes such as acral melanoma are not typically included in trials. Here we present analyses from longitudinal sampling of a patient with metastatic acral melanoma that became resistant to successive immune and targeted therapies., Methods: We performed whole-exome sequencing and RNA sequencing on an acral melanoma that progressed on successive immune (nivolumab) and targeted (dabrafenib) therapy in the brain to identify resistance mechanisms. In addition, we performed growth inhibition assays, reverse phase protein arrays and immunoblotting on patient-derived cell lines using dabrafenib in the presence or absence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in vitro. Patient-derived xenografts were also developed to analyse response to dabrafenib., Results: Immune escape following checkpoint blockade was not due to loss of tumour cell recognition by the immune system or low neoantigen burden, but was associated with distinct changes in the microenvironment. Similarly, resistance to targeted therapy was not associated with acquired mutations but upregulation of the AKT/phospho-inositide 3-kinase pathway in the presence of CSF., Conclusion: Heterogeneous tumour interactions within the brain microenvironment enable progression on immune and targeted therapies and should be targeted in salvage treatments., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RM Consultant Pfizer; Rewards to Inventors Scheme, Institute of Cancer Research. RJL Honoraria BMS. PL Consultant/Advisory Role: BMS, Novartis, MSD, NeraCare, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Incyte. Honoraria: BMS, Novartis, Incyte, MSD, Amgen, NeraCare, PierreFabre. Research funding: BMS. Travel support: BMS, MSD, PierreFabre, Incyte., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC)., Methods: We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope., Results: The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57-0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59-0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59-0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56-0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51-1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63-3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63-2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65-2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01-1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34-0.43) for the Manchester formula., Conclusions: Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.

Identifying the underlying genetic drivers of the heritability of breast cancer prognosis remains elusive. We adapt a network-based approach to handle underpowered complex datasets to provide new insights into the potential function of germline variants in breast cancer prognosis. This network-based analysis studies ~7.3 million variants in 84,457 breast cancer patients in relation to breast cancer survival and confirms the results on 12,381 independent patients. Aggregating the prognostic effects of genetic variants across multiple genes, we identify four gene modules associated with survival in estrogen receptor (ER)-negative and one in ER-positive disease. The modules show biological enrichment for cancer-related processes such as G-alpha signaling, circadian clock, angiogenesis, and Rho-GTPases in apoptosis.

Background: Breast cancer survivors are at risk for contralateral breast cancer (CBC), with the consequent burden of further treatment and potentially less favorable prognosis. We aimed to develop and validate a CBC risk prediction model and evaluate its applicability for clinical decision-making., Methods: We included data of 132,756 invasive non-metastatic breast cancer patients from 20 studies with 4682 CBC events and a median follow-up of 8.8 years. We developed a multivariable Fine and Gray prediction model (PredictCBC-1A) including patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics and BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, accounting for the competing risks of death and distant metastasis. We also developed a model without BRCA1/2 mutation status (PredictCBC-1B) since this information was available for only 6% of patients and is routinely unavailable in the general breast cancer population. Prediction performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination, calculated by a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and an internal-external cross-validation procedure. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of the model to quantify clinical utility., Results: In the multivariable model, BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, family history, and systemic adjuvant treatment showed the strongest associations with CBC risk. The AUC of PredictCBC-1A was 0.63 (95% prediction interval (PI) at 5 years, 0.52-0.74; at 10 years, 0.53-0.72). Calibration-in-the-large was -0.13 (95% PI: -1.62-1.37), and the calibration slope was 0.90 (95% PI: 0.73-1.08). The AUC of Predict-1B at 10 years was 0.59 (95% PI: 0.52-0.66); calibration was slightly lower. Decision curve analysis for preventive contralateral mastectomy showed potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-1A between thresholds of 4-10% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers., Conclusions: We developed a reasonably calibrated model to predict the risk of CBC in women of European-descent; however, prediction accuracy was moderate. Our model shows potential for improved risk counseling, but decision-making regarding contralateral preventive mastectomy, especially in the general breast cancer population where limited information of the mutation status in BRCA1/2 is available, remains challenging.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , ATM , and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM , which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM :p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2 . These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM -/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM :p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P  = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P  = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM :p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; FANCM :p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P  = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM -associated tumors., Competing Interests: Competing interestsC.I. reports consulting with AstraZeneca and Pfizer and her institution receives research support for Tesaro, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. B.Y.K. served on Invitae Corporation’s Advisory Board from 2017 to 2018. K.P. reports receiving fee, paid to his institution, for lectures and/or participation in advisory board of AstraZeneca and Pfizer and travel support from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Jordi Surrallés’ institution received research support from Rocket Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Fanconi anemia (FA) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder with 22 disease-causing genes reported to date. In some FA genes, monoallelic mutations have been found to be associated with breast cancer risk, while the risk associations of others remain unknown. The gene for FA type C, FANCC, has been proposed as a breast cancer susceptibility gene based on epidemiological and sequencing studies. We used the Oncoarray project to genotype two truncating FANCC variants (p.R185X and p.R548X) in 64,760 breast cancer cases and 49,793 controls of European descent. FANCC mutations were observed in 25 cases (14 with p.R185X, 11 with p.R548X) and 26 controls (18 with p.R185X, 8 with p.R548X). There was no evidence of an association with the risk of breast cancer, neither overall (odds ratio 0.77, 95%CI 0.44-1.33, p = 0.4) nor by histology, hormone receptor status, age or family history. We conclude that the breast cancer risk association of these two FANCC variants, if any, is much smaller than for BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2 mutations. If this applies to all truncating variants in FANCC it would suggest there are differences between FA genes in their roles on breast cancer risk and demonstrates the merit of large consortia for clarifying risk associations of rare variants.

Objective: Academic pathology is facing a crisis; an ongoing decline in academic pathology posts, a paucity of academic pathologist's in-training and unfilled posts at a time when cellular pathology departments are challenged to deliver increasing numbers of molecular tests. The National Cancer Research Institute initiative in Cellular & Molecular Pathology commissioned a survey to assess attitudes of cellular pathology consultants towards research in order to understand barriers and identify possible solutions to improve this situation. As cellular pathology is encompassing an increasing number of diagnostic molecular tests, we also surveyed the current approach to and extent of training in molecular pathology., Methods: The survey was distributed to all UK-based consultant pathologists via the Pathological Society of Great Britain & Ireland and Royal College of Pathologist networks. Heads of Department were contacted separately to obtain figures for number of academic training and consultant posts., Results: 302 cellular pathologists completed the survey which represents approximately 21% of the total cellular histopathology workforce. Most respondents (89%) had been involved in research at some point; currently, 22% were undertaking research formally, and 41% on an informal basis. Of those previously involved in research, 57% stopped early in their consultant career. The majority of substantive academic posts were Professors of which 60% had been in post for >20 years. Most respondents (84%) used molecular pathology in diagnostic work, independent of where they worked or the length of time in post. Notably, 53% of consultants had not received molecular pathology training, particularly more senior consultants and consultants in district general hospitals., Conclusions: The survey reveals that the academic workforce is skewed towards senior individuals, many of whom are approaching retirement, with a missing cohort of 'junior consultant' academic pathologists to replace them. Most pathologists stop formal research activity at the beginning of a consultant career. While molecular pathology is an increasing part of a pathologist's workload, the majority of consultant cellular pathologists have not received any formal molecular training., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We examined the associations between germline variants and breast cancer mortality using a large meta-analysis of women of European ancestry., Methods: Meta-analyses included summary estimates based on Cox models of twelve datasets using ~10.4 million variants for 96,661 women with breast cancer and 7697 events (breast cancer-specific deaths). Oestrogen receptor (ER)-specific analyses were based on 64,171 ER-positive (4116) and 16,172 ER-negative (2125) patients. We evaluated the probability of a signal to be a true positive using the Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP)., Results: We did not find any variant associated with breast cancer-specific mortality at P < 5 × 10 -8 . For ER-positive disease, the most significantly associated variant was chr7:rs4717568 (BFDP = 7%, P = 1.28 × 10 -7 , hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84-0.92); the closest gene is AUTS2. For ER-negative disease, the most significant variant was chr7:rs67918676 (BFDP = 11%, P = 1.38 × 10 -7 , HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16-1.39); located within a long intergenic non-coding RNA gene (AC004009.3), close to the HOXA gene cluster., Conclusions: We uncovered germline variants on chromosome 7 at BFDP < 15% close to genes for which there is biological evidence related to breast cancer outcome. However, the paucity of variants associated with mortality at genome-wide significance underpins the challenge in providing genetic-based individualised prognostic information for breast cancer patients.