Search

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents approximately 10-20% of Breast Cancer (BC) diagnosed worldwide and in accordance with the current guideline it is defined by the absence of expression of the of expression of the estrogen receptor (ER=60yThe majority of BC was diagnosed at an early stage. All TNBCs present ductal histotype, mostly with high proliferation rate and grading 3. Characteristics of tumors are shown in Table 1. In our cohort, PALB2 mutations were the most frequent PVs in non-BRCA genes, in line with several previous studies. Interesting, we identified RAD51C/D mutations as second PVs non-BRCA genes, in support of certain studies that suggest an association with an increased risk for TNBC and OC. In conclusion, our results support the MGP using, opening the question about the 60-year cut off for genetic testing in TNBC, regardless of family history. Table 1.Characteristics of TNBC tumors in patients carrying other than BRCA gene mutationsPALB2RAD51C/DATMMUTYHBRIPPMS2PTENNBNBARD1CHECK2TP53Number of patients165332111111Mean age at diagnosis (y)61.4 (44-94)48 (33-62)52.3 (49-54)44.3(40-50)42.5 (36-49)394958485036Ki 67 (%)=406(54.5%)4(100%)1(50%)1 (50%)1(100%)100100unknown51111000011GradingG1-23 (25%)0000001000G39 (75%)4 (100%)3 (100%)3(100%)2(100%)110101Unknown41000000010Histotypeductal14 (100%)4(100%)3(100%)3(100%)2(100%)110111others00000001000unknown21000000000Stage at diagnosisI7 (63.6%)3 (60%)01 (100%)1 (100%)010000II4 (36.4%)1 (20%)2 (100%)00001000III01 (20%)000300000unknown50121000111 Citation Format: Laura Cortesi, Marta Venturelli, Angela Toss, Claudia Piombino, Elena Barbieri, Elisabetta Razzaboni, Luca Moscetti, Federico Piacentini, Claudia Omarini, Federica Domati, Massimo Dominici. Characteristics of TNBC patients carrying other than BRCA gene mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-14.

Objective: As prostate cancer (PrC) shows a BRCA mutation rate as high as 30%, it becomes crucial to find the optimal selectioncriteria for genetic testing. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the BRCA mutation rate in families with PrC associatedwith breast and/or ovarian cancers; secondary aims were to compare the characteristics of families and BRCA-related PrC outcomeamong BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Methods: Following the Modena criteria for the BRCA test, we evaluated the mutation rate in families with breast and/or ovariancancer with a Gleason score ≥7 PrCs, by testing breast or ovarian cases and inferring the mutation in the prostate cases. Thecharacteristics of families and BRCA-related PrC outcomes were measured using the chi-square (χ2) test and Kaplan–Meier methods,respectively. Results: Among 6,591 families, 580 (8.8%) with a Gleason score ≥ 7 PrCs were identified, of which 332 (57.2%) met the Modenaselection criteria for BRCA testing. Overall, 215 breast or ovarian cancer probands (64.8%) were tested, of which 41 resulted positivefor BRCA and one for CHEK2 genes (19.5%). No statistically significant differences were found in BRCA-related PrC prognosis andin the characteristics of families among BRCA1, BRCA2 and non-tested patients. Ten of 23 (44%) mutations in the BRCA2 gene fellin the prostate cancer cluster region (PCCR) at the 3′ terminal of the 7914 codon. Conclusions: It appears the Modena criteria are very useful for BRCA testing selection in families with breast and/or ovarian cancerand PrC. A trend toward a worse prognosis has been found in BRCA2 carriers.

Background Immunotherapy has brought clinical benefits to patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Most patients tolerate immunotherapy but serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been reported. Some studies indicate a correlation between irAEs and clinical response in other cancer types (eg, lung cancer and melanoma). For patients with mRCC, the impact of irAE on clinical outcome is unknown. Patients and Methods A retrospective review of 167 patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab as standard of care between March 2017 and January 2018 in 16 Italian centers was performed. irAEs were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. Results Any grade and grade 3/4 irAEs occurred in 46% and 8.9% of patients, respectively. The median time to appearance of irAEs was 10 weeks; 38.8% of patients required steroid treatment. The most common irAEs were cutaneous (33.7%) and gastrointestinal (23.3%). The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 20.13 and 7.86 months, respectively. Patients with irAEs showed a greater overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.63) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.66) benefit as well as better overall response rate (27.3% vs. 13.7%; odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.03-5.44) and disease control rate (68.8% vs. 48%; odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.23-4.67) if compared with those without irAEs. No correlation was found between steroid use and clinical outcomes. Conclusions Our analysis revealed that the appearance of irAEs was associated with better outcomes in patients treated with nivolumab. This data may be limited by sample size and the retrospective nature of the study.

Lurbinectedin is responsible for DNA recognition and binding, producing double-strand DNA (dsDNA) breaks thus resulting in apoptosis. Sensitivity to lurbinectedin is linked to the nucleotide excision repair (NER) system. Furthermore, irinotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, provokes dsDNA breaks that could be reinforced abrogating the NER system using lurbinectedin. BRCA-mutated patients, already treated with platinum-derived drugs, who suffered DNA damage, cannot repair the breaks due to lurbinectedin interaction, whereas irinotecan provokes a dsDNA break that promotes synthetic lethality. This article describes an exceptional response to lurbinectedin alone followed by the association with irinotecan in a BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patient. A 44-year-old BRCA1-mutated ovarian cancer patient was treated in sixth line with lurbinectedin and irinotecan with a time to further progression (TTFP) equal to 8 months. In our case, the association with irinotecan overcame the resistance to lurbinectedin alone. In conclusion, lurbinectedin and irinotecan demonstrated a promising response in platinum-resistant patients. However, further studies should be conducted to validate our findings and future trials will be important to further define the clinical utility of lurbinectedin.

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).

Hereditary cancer syndromes are inherited disorders caused by germline pathogenic variants (PVs) that lead to an increased risk of developing certain types of cancer, frequently at an earlier age than in the rest of the population. The germline PVs promote cancer development, growth and survival, and may represent an ideal target for the personalized treatment of hereditary tumors. PARP inhibitors for the treatment of BRCA and PALB2-associated tumors, immune checkpoint inhibitors for tumors associated with the Lynch Syndrome, HIF-2α inhibitor in the VHL-related cancers and, finally, selective RET inhibitors for the treatment of MEN2-associated medullary thyroid cancer are the most successful examples of how a germline PVs can be exploited to develop effective personalized therapies and improve the outcome of these patients. The present review aims to describe and discuss the personalized systemic therapies for inherited cancer syndromes that have been developed and investigated in clinical trials in recent decades.

Introduction Immunotherapy dramatically changed history of melanoma patients with a clinical benefit never seen before. Nevertheless, severe and unexpected adverse effects can occur, fortunately rarely. Case presentation We reported the case of a 75-year-old male patient affected by metastatic melanoma who developed myocarditis and acute rhabdomyolysis with secondary diaphragmatic dysfunction and consequent pulmonary restrictive syndrome after Nivolumab monotherapy. Blood tests and ultrasonography of the diaphragm revealing left hypokinesis suggested a Nivolumab-related rhabdomyolysis, as an immune-mediated adverse event. The rhabdomylolysis involved the diaphragm with consequent diaphragmatic weakness and respiratory distress. Mangement & outcome The patient had a slow but slight and progressive improvement of symptoms and vital signs post-treatment with high-dose corticosteroids. Discussion With this case report, we want to highlight the importance of rapid recognition and treatment of rare and unexpected, but potential serious immune-related adverse events. These events might happen despite the remarkable clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We do not know which patients will benefit from these therapies and why, when and in which cases adverse event will occur: we must not lower our attention.

BACKGROUND: Young breast cancer (BC) survivors are at risk of infertility. Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation before (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy is standard of care. Research efforts have shown no negative prognostic effect of pregnancy following BC therapy, also among BRCA carriers. Currently, poor evidence is available on the safety to undergo ART following BC treatment, with no data in carriers of germline BRCA pathogenic variants. To provide evidence on the safety of fertility treatments in this specific population, we assessed the outcomes of a cohort of BRCA-mutated BC survivors who had a pregnancy after prior BC history by comparing the group of patients who underwent ART to achieve pregnancy to the group with spontaneous pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study across 30 centers worldwide including women diagnosed at ≤ 40 years with stage I-III BC, between January 2000 and December 2012, bearing germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Survivors with a pregnancy (any outcome) after BC, with no disease-free survival (DFS) event before pregnancy, were assigned to the ART and non-ART group if their pregnancy was achieved through ART or spontaneously, respectively. ART procedures included ovulation induction, ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and embryo transfer under hormonal replacement therapy (HRT). RESULTS: Of 1,424 patients registered in the study, 168 with a pregnancy after BC were included in the present analysis. A total of 22 patients were included in the ART group and 146 in the non-ART group. Before BC diagnosis, 18.2% patients in the ART group had at least one child, compared to 38.4% in the non-ART group (P=0.030). Patients had a median age at BC diagnosis of 33.0 vs 30.2 years old in the ART group and in the non-ART group, respectively (P=0.004); 45.4% and 17.1% had grade 1-2 tumors, respectively (P=0.008), and 59.1% vs 31.5% had hormone receptor-positive tumors, respectively (P=0.016). Both cohorts had similar tumor size and nodal stage characteristics. Type and duration of endocrine therapy were comparable between groups. The type of ART was not specified in 5 survivors (22.7%). Ovulation induction was used in 1 patient (4.5%), ovarian stimulation in 7 patients (31.8%), embryo transfer under HRT following oocyte donation in 5 patients (22.7%), and embryo transfer under HRT following oocyte and/or embryo cryopreservation for fertility preservation in 4 patients (18.2%). Median age at conception among survivors was 39.7 years in the ART group versus 35.4 years in the non-ART group (P Citation Format: Margherita Condorelli, Marco Bruzzone, Marcello Ceppi, Alberta Ferrari, Albert Grinshpun, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Evandro de Azambuja, Estela Carrasco, Fedro A. Peccatori, Antonio Di Meglio, Shani Paluch-Shimon, Philip D. Poorvu, Marta Venturelli, Christine Rousset-Jablonski, Claire Senechal, Luca Livraghi, Riccardo Ponzone, Laura De Marchis, Katarzyna Pogoda, Amir Sonnenblick, Cynthia Villarreal-Garza, Octavi Córdoba, Luis Teixeira, Florian Clatot, Kevin Punie, Rossella Graffeo Galbiati, Maria Vittoria Dieci, Alejandro Pérez-Fidalgo, Francois P. Duhoux, Fabio Puglisi, Arlindo R. Ferreira, Eva Blondeaux, Tamar Peretz-Yablonski, Olivier Caron, Claire Saule, Lieveke Ameye, Judith Balmaña, Ann H. Partridge, Hatem A. Azim, Jr, Isabelle Demeestere, Matteo Lambertini. Safety of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) following treatment completion in young women with germline BRCA pathogenic variants having a pregnancy after breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-06.

NUT midline carcinoma (NMC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of squamous carcinoma that typically arises from midline supradiaphragmatic structures, frequently from the head and neck area. NMC is genetically driven by a chromosomal rearrangement involving the NUT gene, which forms oncoproteins considered major pathogenic drivers of cellular transformation. Diagnosis of NMC has been made remarkably easier with the availability of a commercial antibody against NUT, and can be established through positive nuclear immunohistochemical staining. Although NMC remains an underrecognized malignancy, in recent years there has appeared to be increasing awareness of disease and frequency of diagnosis in adults. To date, a standard treatment for head and neck NMC has not been established and a multimodal approach with systemic chemotherapy, surgery and radiation therapy is currently adopted in clinical practice. Recently, BET inhibitors and histone deacetylase inhibitors have emerged as two promising classes of targeted agents, currently investigated in clinical trials for adults with head and neck NMC. At the same time, combination approaches and novel targeted agents, such as next-generation BET inhibitors and CDK9 inhibitors, have shown preclinical activity. The present review explores the clinical pathological characteristics of NMC of the head and neck and presents the current state of the art on diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of this rare but lethal disease.

The standard first-line for endocrine sensitive metastatic breast cancer (BC) is represented by endocrine therapy. Several phase III clinical trials searched for more effective endocrine strategies. Nevertheless, the use of combinations for the first-line treatment of bone-only disease (BoD) is widely discussed, due to its indolent course. Our meta-analysis aims to explore the role of new endocrine strategies in BoD. A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify the phase III clinical trials comparing the standard AI to novel experimental strategies. The hazard ratios (HR) for PFS were pooled in a meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the data was evaluated by Chi-square Q test and I2 statistic. 8 studies were included in the analyses. 4 trials explored the role of CDK4/6 inhibitors (Monaleesa2 and 7, Monarch3 and Paloma2), 2 trials analyzed Fulvestrant + AI (SWOG and FACT), one trial studied Fulvestrant monotherapy (FALCON), while one trial evaluated the association between Bevacizumab and Letrozole (ALLIANCE). 6 trials reported data regarding the BoD, while 2 trials included the BoD in the non-visceral disease. Overall, the meta-analyses showed a PFS advantage for the experimental arms [HR 0.70 p 0.012], with a significant moderate/high heterogeneity [I2 66.48% p 0.004]. Only the FALCON and Paloma2 showed a significant improvement in PFS, respectively for Fulvestrant and Palbociclib + Letrozole. Considering only trials reporting data for BoD, the experimental arms significantly improved the PFS [HR 0.66 p 0.005], with a low/moderate non-significant heterogeneity [I2 44.95% p 0.106]. The novel strategies showed to be able to improve the PFS of BoD. Nonetheless, only Palbociclib + Letrozole provided statistically significant data of advantage in this setting. In clinical trials, BoD is often included in the non-visceral disease subgroup. Future clinical trials should take into account the differences in natural history and better prognosis of BoD, in order to define the best approach to these patients. Citation Format: Toss A, Venturelli M, Sperduti I, Isca C, Molinaro E, Barbieri E, Piacentini F, Omarini C, Cortesi L, Cascinu S, Moscetti L. First-line treatment for endocrine sensitive bone-only metastatic breast cancer: Is more always better? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-18-06.

The most common breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 are ATM and CHEK2. For the purpose of exploring the clinicopathologic characteristics of BC developed by ATM or CHEK2 mutation carriers, we reviewed the archive of our Family Cancer Clinic. Since 2018, 1185 multi-gene panel tests have been performed. Nineteen ATM and 17 CHEK2 mutation carriers affected by 46 different BCs were identified. A high rate of bilateral tumors was observed in ATM (26.3%) and CHEK2 mutation carriers (41.2%). While 64.3% of CHEK2 tumors were luminal A-like, 56.2% of ATM tumors were luminal B-like/HER2-negative. Moreover, 21.4% of CHEK2-related invasive tumors showed a lobular histotype. About a quarter of all ATM-related BCs and a third of CHEK2 BCs were in situ carcinomas and more than half of ATM and CHEK2-related BCs were diagnosed at stage I-II. Finally, 63.2% of ATM mutation carriers and 64.7% of CHEK2 mutation carriers presented a positive BC family history. The biological and clinical characteristics of ATM and CHEK2-related tumors may help improve diagnosis, prognostication and targeted therapeutic approaches. Contralateral mastectomy should be considered and discussed with ATM and CHEK2 mutation carriers at the first diagnosis of BC.

NCCN Guidelines recommend BRCA genetic testing in individuals with a probability &gt, 5% of being a carrier. Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness of testing individuals with no tumor family history is still debated, especially when BRCA testing is offered by the national health service. Our analysis evaluated the rate of BRCA pathogenic or likely-pathogenic variants in 159 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients diagnosed &le, 60 years, and 109 luminal-like breast cancer (BC) patients diagnosed &le, 35 without breast and/or ovarian family histories. In TNBC patients, BRCA mutation prevalence was 22.6% (21.4% BRCA1). Mutation prevalence was 64.2% &le, 30 years, 31.8% in patients aged 31&ndash, 40, 16.1% for those aged 41&ndash, 50 and 7.9% in 51&ndash, 60s. A total of 40% of patients with estrogen receptors (ER) 1&ndash, 9% were BRCA1 carriers. BRCA detection rate in early-onset BCs was 6.4% (4.6% BRCA2). Mutation prevalence was 0% between 0&ndash, 25 years, 9% between 26&ndash, 30 years and 6% between 31&ndash, 35 years. In conclusion, BRCA testing is recommended in TNBC patients diagnosed &le, 60 years, regardless of family cancer history or histotype, and by using immunohistochemical staining &lt, 10% for both ER and/PR. In luminal-like early-onset BC, a lower BRCA detection rate was observed, suggesting a role for other predisposing genes along with BRCA genetic testing.

In the last decade, several clinical trials have investigated novel endocrine combinations for the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Nevertheless, the use of combinations for the first-line treatment of bone-only disease is widely discussed as a result of its indolent natural history. We performed a comprehensive search of phase 3 randomized clinical trials published in the literature through September 2018. Our aim was to explore the role of the new endocrine approaches in bone-only metastatic breast cancer, suggesting a possible strategy for their selection. In particular, we evaluated the comparative risk of adverse event occurrence during these treatments. A total of 6 studies were deemed suitable for meta-analysis: the Monaleesa-2, Monaleesa-7, Monarch-3, Paloma-2, SWOG, and Alliance trials. Overall, the novel strategies were shown to improve progression-free survival in bone-only disease (hazard ratio = 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.86; P = .003). Combinations with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.75; P < .001) with an acceptable toxicity profile. Abemaciclib was associated with increased anemia and gastrointestinal toxicity (especially diarrhea), whereas palbociclib was associated with increased leukopenia (but not neutropenia) compared to the other compounds. Increased aspartate aminotransferase levels were reported for both ribociclib and abemaciclib. The combination of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy represents an effective and well-tolerated approach for first-line treatment in bone-only disease settings. Because no direct comparison between the 3 cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors is available, the selection of the most appropriate treatment should be based on toxicity profile as well as patient preference and copathologies.

The identification of BRCA mutations plays a crucial role in the management of hereditary cancer prevention and treatment. Nonetheless, BRCA-testing in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients is not universally introduced in clinical practice. A retrospective analysis was conducted, firstly, to evaluate the rate of BRCA-positive families among those presenting a family history of PC besides breast and/or ovarian cancer. Secondly, the relationship between BRCA pathogenic variants and PC risk was evaluated. Finally, the characteristics of PC developed in BRCA families were described. Among 5143 family trees reporting breast and/or ovarian cancer cases, 392 showed a family history of PC. A total of 35 families (24.5% selected by the Modena Criteria and 21.3% by the NCCN Criteria) were positive to BRCA testing. Among the BRCA1 mutations, 36.8% were found within a region defined by c.3239&ndash, c.3917, whilst 43.7% of BRCA2 mutations were located within c.7180&ndash, c.8248. This study confirmed that an increase in the rate of positive tests in families with PC when associated to breast and/or ovarian tumors. Moreover, this analysis indicated two possible Pancreatic Cancer Cluster Regions that should be verified in future research. Finally, PC in families with breast and/or ovarian cancer history, particularly in BRCA families, were diagnosed at younger age and showed better one-year overall survival.

Background Considering the high proportion of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in BRCA-related breast cancer, we expect that PD-1 pathway is highly expressed and PD-1 antagonist pembrolizumab could provide clinical activity in this kind of tumor. Furthermore, BRCA-related breast cancers are known to be more sensitive to platinum-derived drugs. Thus the association between Pembrolizumab and Carboplatin in metastatic BRCA-related breast cancer seems to be active in this setting of patients. This study will evaluate the safety and the efficacy of Pembrolizumab associated with Carboplatin in BRCA mutated or with unknown mutations metastatic breast cancer patients. Study and Statistical DesignThis is a national multicenter two-stage single arm phase II study, enrolling BRCA mutated or with unknown mutations metastatic breast cancer patients. The sample size has been estimated by using the two-stage Simon’s design. In the first stage, 20 subjects will be enrolled. If, after first stage ≤11 responses (r1) will be observed, accrual will terminate and the experimental regimen will be rejected. Otherwise if 12 or more responses will be seen then the accrual will continue to the second stage of an additional 33 subjects (total, 53 subjects). At the second stage if 33 or less responses out of 53 subjects will be observed the treatment will be rejected. With the null hypothesis (p0) being equal 0.55 with a type I (alfa) error of 0.10 (10%) and a type II (beta) error of 0.20 (power=80%) and the alternative hypothesis (p1) is 0.70, (response rate 70%), we expect to reach an overall response rate (ORR) ≥ 70% by the combination of Pembrolizumab plus Carboplatin. We also expect to reach a median Time to Progression (TTP) and Overall Survival (OS) of five and fifteen months respectively. The Disease Control Rate (DCR) will be expected as ≥ 80% by the combination of Pembrolizumab plus Carboplatin Study TreatmentCarboplatin at area under the time-concentration curve 6 (AUC 6) intravenously once every 3 weeks in combination with Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks will be administered for six courses and then only Pembrolizumab alone will continue until occurrence of unacceptable toxicities or disease progression. Eligibility CriteriaIn order to be eligible for participation in this trial, the subject, aged ≥ 18 years, must have metastatic confirmed breast cancer, with a disease progression by radiological techniques within 12 months prior to signing informed consent, and a documented mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes that is predicted to be deleterious or suspected deleterious or with unknown significance. The subject must have measurable disease based on RECIST 1.1 and have a performance status of 0 or 1 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Scale. Prior chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes has to be administered in neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. In case of luminal tumors hormonal treatments for advanced disease can be administered before. The life expectancy must be greater than 3 months and the subject must demonstrate adequate organ function by screening labs performed within 10 days of treatment initiation. Objectives and HypothesisThe primary end-point will be the ORR, evaluated according to RECIST criteria. Secondary objectives will be the TTP, the duration of response (DOR ), the DCR, and the OS. The safety of the combination will be evaluated according to the worst toxicity grade reported throughout the whole treatment period.The Exploratory Objective will be the evaluation of ORR, TTP, DOR, and DCR based on irRECIST. Biological parameters of CD8/TILs and PD-L1 will be considered in the metastatic biopsy. Target AccrualThe first subject was enrolled in January 2019 and recruitment is ongoing. Enrollment of the first 20 subjects is expected to complete in Q2 2021. Citation Format: Laura Cortesi, Marta Venturelli, Federica Caggia, Luigi Marcheselli, Annita Gozzi, Alberto Zambelli, Valentina Guarneri, Antonino Musolino, Elena Fiorio, Giancarlo Bisagni, Andrea Rocca, Valentina Arcangeli, Elisabetta De Matteis, Sergio Rizzo, Andrea Michelotti. A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus carboplatin in BRCA-related metastatic breast cancer: PEMBRACA trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT-31-01.

Marta Venturelli,1 Giorgia Guaitoli,1 Claudia Omarini,1 Luca Moscetti2 1Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Children & Adults, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy; 2Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, Modena, Italy Abstract: Endocrine treatment represents the cornerstone of endocrine-sensitive premenopausal early breast cancer. The estrogen blockade plays a leading role in the therapeutic management of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer together with surgery, radiotherapy, and selective antiestrogen treatments. For several years, selective estrogen receptor modulators, such as tamoxifen, have represented the mainstay of therapy. The role of amenorrhea has been extensively elucidated in the past year: the benefit observed with chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea has strengthened its therapeutic role. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) has been introduced in oncology practice to induce amenorrhea in order to increase the advantage obtained from endocrine treatment. Triptorelin is one of the most widely used LHRH analogs currently available in clinical practice. It was recently investigated in two major clinical trials that studied the role of complete estrogen blockade in the premenopausal setting. Both showed the clinical benefit due to ovarian suppression treatment, primarily in high-risk patients. Furthermore, triptorelin and other LHRH analogs have recently been investigated in the attempt to preserve the ovarian function in young patients. The medical treatment of early breast cancer is always evolving in the effort to search for safe and efficacious treatments. The role of LHRH analogs is actually well recognized as contributing to the improvement of the medical treatment of premenopausal women with early breast cancer. Keywords: adjuvant, hormone therapy, LHRH, amenorrhea

In recent years, the study of genomic alterations and protein expression involved in the pathways of breast cancer carcinogenesis has provided an increasing number of targets for drugs development in the setting of metastatic breast cancer (i.e., trastuzumab, everolimus, palbociclib, etc.) significantly improving the prognosis of this disease. These drugs target specific molecular abnormalities that confer a survival advantage to cancer cells. On these bases, emerging evidence from clinical trials provided increasing proof that the genetic landscape of any tumor may dictate its sensitivity or resistance profile to specific agents and some studies have already showed that tumors treated with therapies matched with their molecular alterations obtain higher objective response rates and longer survival. Predictive molecular biomarkers may optimize the selection of effective therapies, thus reducing treatment costs and side effects. This review offers an overview of the main molecular pathways involved in breast carcinogenesis, the targeted therapies developed to inhibit these pathways, the principal mechanisms of resistance and, finally, the molecular biomarkers that, to date, are demonstrated in clinical trials to predict response/resistance to targeted treatments in metastatic breast cancer.

e13674 Background: BRCA germline (gBRCA) mutations occur in 11-15% of women with unselected ovarian cancers (OC), whereas somatic BRCA (sBRCA) mutations occur in approximately 5-7% of cases. The impact of sBRCA mutations on OC outcome is still debated. Methods: With the aim to explore the prognostic role of sBRCA mutations, the BRCA mutational status of 149 non-mucinous and non-borderline OC and their clinical-pathological features were evaluated. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutational profiles, either for sequence variants or copy number alterations, were evaluated by amplicon next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology. Results: 29 (19.5%) patients carried a gBRCA mutation (12.7% BRCA1 and 6.7% BRCA2). 26 (17.5%) patients presented a sBRCA mutation (6.7% BRCA1, 10% BRCA2, 0.6% BRCA1+BRCA2). Patients carrying a gBRCA mutation were slightly younger (57 years) than the others (60 years). The FIGO stage at the diagnosis was III-IV in 77.2% of cases, with no significant difference among subgroups. The most frequent histotype was serous for all the subgroups (93.1% in gBRCA, 84.6% in sBRCA, 77.7% in BRCA-negative, p = 0.08). 80.7% of sBRCA mutation carriers, 62.1% of gBRCA mutation carriers and 62.7% of BRCA-negative patients underwent upfront surgery (p = 0.46). 29.1% of sBRCA mutation carriers, 17.8% of gBRCA mutation carriers and 25.6% of BRCA-negative patients presented macroscopic residual disease after surgery (p = 0.68). Although non-statistically significant, gBRCA-associated OC were more likely to be platinum-sensitive (96.6%) than the other patients (92% in sBRCA and 87.1% in BRCA-negative patients). Overall, the median platinum-free interval (PFI) resulted shorter in sBRCA mutation patients compared to gBRCA and BRCA-negative patients (p = 0.051). No patient took PARP inhibitors as maintenance after the first line therapy. Also progression free survival 2 (PFS2) resulted shorter for sBRCA mutation patients (p = 0.008). Three sBRCA and 5 gBRCA mutation carriers took a PARP inhibitor as maintenance after the second line therapy. Finally, sBRCA mutated patients showed worse overall survival (OS) compared to the other subgroups (p = 0.014). Conclusions: Overall, 19.5% of OC patients presented a gBRCA mutation, while 17.5% of patients showed sBRCA mutations. sBRCA-related OC did not show significantly differences in clinical-pathological features (stage at diagnosis, histotype, time to surgery and residual after surgery). To our knowledge this is the first study showing shorter PFI, PFS2 and OS in patients carrying sBRCA mutations.