Frequency of pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 and TP53 in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in women under the age of 50 years

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: finding the balance between overtreatment and undertreatment

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 15-25% of all breast cancer diagnoses. Its prognosis is excellent overall, the main risk being the occurrence of local breast events, as most cases of DCIS do not progress to invasive cancer. Systematic screening has greatly increased the incidence of this non-obligate precursor of invasion, lending urgency to the need to identify DCIS that is prone to invasive progression and distinguish it from non-invasion-prone DCIS, as the latter can be overdiagnosed and therefore overtreated. Treatment strategies, including surgery, radiotherapy, and optional endocrine therapy, decrease the risk of local events, but have no effect on survival outcomes. Active surveillance is being evaluated as a possible new option for low-risk DCIS. Considerable efforts to decipher the biology of DCIS have led to a better understanding of the factors that determine its variable natural history. Given this variability, shared decision making regarding optimal, personalised treatment strategies is the most appropriate course of action. Well designed, risk-based de-escalation studies remain a major need in this field.

Germline Genetic Testing Among Women ≤ 45 Years of Age with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Versus Invasive Breast Cancer in a Large Integrated Health Care System

BACKGROUND

We compared the results of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients ≤ 45 years of age diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive breast cancer (IBC) in a large integrated health care system.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of hereditary cancer gene testing among women ≤ 45 years of age diagnosed with DCIS or IBC at Kaiser Permanente Northern California between September 2019 and August 2020 was performed. During the study period, institutional guidelines recommended the above population be referred to genetic counselors for pretesting counseling and testing.

RESULTS

A total of 61 DCIS and 485 IBC patients were identified. Genetic counselors met with 95% of both groups, and 86.4% of DCIS patients and 93.9% of IBC patients (p = 0.0339) underwent gene testing. Testing differed by race/ethnicity (p = 0.0372). Among those tested, 11.76% (n = 6) of DCIS patients and 16.71% (n = 72) of IBC patients had a pathogenic variant (PV) or likely pathogenic variant (LPV) based on the 36-gene panel (p = 0.3650). Similar trends were seen in 13 breast cancer (BC)-related genes (p = 0.0553). Family history of cancer was significantly associated with both BC-related and non-BC-related PVs in IBC, but not DCIS.

CONCLUSION

In our study, 95% of patients were seen by a genetic counselor when age was used as an eligibility criterion for referral. While larger studies are needed to further compare the prevalence of PVs/LPVs among DCIS and IBC patients, our data suggest that even in younger patients, the prevalence of PVs/LPVs in BC-related genes is lower in DCIS patients.

Differential involvement of germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer genes between DCIS and low-grade invasive cancers

PURPOSE

To investigate frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and grade 1 invasive breast cancer (G1BC).

METHODS

We undertook BRCA1/2 analysis in 311 women with DCIS and 392 with G1BC and extended panel testing (non-BRCA1/2) in 176/311 with DCIS and 156/392 with G1BC. We investigated PV detection by age at diagnosis, Manchester Score (MS), DCIS grade and receptor status.

RESULTS

30/311 (9.6%) with DCIS and 16/392 with G1BC (4.1%) had a BRCA1/2 PV (p=0.003), and 24/176-(13.6%) and 7/156-(4.5%), respectively, a non-BRCA1/2 PV (p=0.004). Increasing MS was associated with increased likelihood of BRCA1/2 PV in both DCIS and G1BC, although the 10% threshold was not predictive for G1GB. 13/32 (40.6%) DCIS and 0/17 with G1BC <40 years had a non-BRCA1/2 PV (p<0.001). 0/16 DCIS G1 had a PV. For G2 and G3 DCIS, PV rates were 10/98 (BRCA1/2) and 9/90 (non-BRCA1/2), and 8/47 (BRCA1/2) and 8/45 (non-BRCA1/2), respectively. 6/9 BRCA1 and 3/26 BRCA2-associated DCIS were oestrogen receptor negative-(p=0.003). G1BC population testing showed no increased PV rate (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.80).

CONCLUSION

DCIS is more likely to be associated with both BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA1/2 PVs than G1BC. Extended panel testing ought to be offered in young-onset DCIS where PV detection rates are highest.

Assessment of pathogenic variation in gynecologic cancer genes in a national cohort

Population-based estimates of pathogenic variation burden in gynecologic cancer predisposition genes are a prerequisite for the development of effective precision public health strategies. This study aims to reveal the burden of pathogenic variants in a comprehensive set of clinically relevant breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer genes in a large population-based study. We performed a rigorous manual classification procedure to identify pathogenic variants in a panel of 17 gynecologic cancer predisposition genes in a cohort of 7091 individuals, representing 0.35% of the general population. The population burden of pathogenic variants in hereditary gynecologic cancer-related genes in our study was 2.14%. Pathogenic variants in genes ATM, BRCA1, and CDH1 are significantly enriched and the burden of pathogenic variants in CHEK2 is decreased in our population compared to the control population. We have identified a high burden of pathogenic variants in several gynecologic cancer-related genes in the Slovenian population, most importantly in the BRCA1 gene.

Identifying recurrences and metastasis after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a non-invasive tumour that has the potential to progress to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Thus, it represents a treatment dilemma: alone it does not present a risk to life, however, left untreated it may progress to a life-threatening condition. Current clinico-pathological features cannot accurately predict which patients with DCIS have invasive potential, and therefore clinicians are unable to quantify the risk of progression for an individual patient. This leads to many women being over-treated, while others may not receive sufficient treatment to prevent invasive recurrence. A better understanding of the molecular features of DCIS, both tumour-intrinsic and the microenvironment, could offer the ability to better predict which women need aggressive treatment, and which can avoid therapies carrying significant side-effects and such as radiotherapy. In this review, we summarise the current knowledge of DCIS, and consider future research directions.

Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal carcinoma in situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive breast neoplasia that accounts for 25% of all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed annually. Neoplastic cells in DCIS are confined to the ductal system of the breast, although they can escape and progress to invasive breast cancer in a subset of patients. A key concern of DCIS is overtreatment, as most patients screened for DCIS and in whom DCIS is diagnosed will not go on to exhibit symptoms or die of breast cancer, even if left untreated. However, differentiating low-risk, indolent DCIS from potentially progressive DCIS remains challenging. In this Review, we summarize our current knowledge of DCIS and explore open questions about the basic biology of DCIS, including those regarding how genomic events in neoplastic cells and the surrounding microenvironment contribute to the progression of DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Further, we discuss what information will be needed to prevent overtreatment of indolent DCIS lesions without compromising adequate treatment for high-risk patients.

Genetic risk factors in melanoma etiopathogenesis and the role of genetic counseling: A concise review

Melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer originating from melanocytes. Its etiopathogenesis is strongly related to genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. Melanomas encountered in clinical practice are predominantly sporadic, whereas hereditary melanomas account for approximately 10% of the cases. Hereditary melanomas mainly develop due to mutations in the CDKN2A gene, which encodes two tumor suppressor proteins involved in the cell cycle regulation. CDKN2A, along with CDK4, TERT, and POT1 genes, is a high-risk gene for melanoma. Among the genes that carry a moderate risk are MC1R and MITF, whose protein products are involved in melanin synthesis. The environment also contributes to the development of melanoma. Patients at risk of melanoma should be offered genetic counseling to discuss genetic testing options and the importance of skin UV protection, avoidance of sun exposure, and regular preventive dermatological examinations. Although cancer screening cannot prevent the development of the disease, it allows for early diagnosis when the survival rate is the highest.

Eligibility, uptake and response to germline genetic testing in women with DCIS

Background

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a malignant, yet pre-invasive disease of the breast. While the majority of DCIS have low risk of recurrence, a subset of women with germline pathogenic variants (PV) in cancer predisposition genes are at increased risk for recurrence. Uptake of genetic testing and subsequent surgical intervention in women with DCIS has not been well-studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate test eligibility parameters, uptake of clinical testing, impact on surgical decision making and second cancer events (SCE) in women with DCIS.

Methods

Four-hundred eighty-four women diagnosed with unilateral DCIS 2001-2020 were eligible for this study. Demographic, commercial genetic test results and surgical procedures were extracted from the database. Test-eligibility was assigned using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. Panel genetic testing was performed in the research laboratory across 94 cancer predisposition genes. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact tests and Chi-square analyses with p < 0.05 defining significance.

Results

Forty-four percent of women were test-eligible at diagnosis of which 63.4% pursued genetic testing before definitive surgery; 9.9% pursued testing only after a second cancer event. Bilateral mastectomy (BM) was significantly higher (p<0.001) in women who had testing before definitive surgery (46.9%) compared to those who had testing afterword (10.8%) and in women who underwent testing before definitive surgery with PV (75%) compared to those without PV (37.5%. p=0.045). Of the 39 women with PV, 20 (51.3%) were detected only in the research setting, with 7 (17.9%) of these women not eligible for genetic testing based on NCCN criteria. In women who did not undergo BM at diagnosis, SCE were significantly higher (p=0.001) in women with PV (33.3%) compared to those without PV (11.9%).

Conclusion

Pursuit of genetic testing and subsequent use of risk-reducing surgeries in women with PV was suboptimal in women with a primary diagnosis of DCIS. In conjunction, >50% of PV were detected only in the research setting. Because omission of genetic testing in women with DCIS may represent a lost opportunity for prevention, genetic testing at the time of diagnosis should be standard for all women with DCIS.

Is loss of p53 a driver of ductal carcinoma in situ progression?

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-obligate precursor of invasive carcinoma. Multiple studies have shown that DCIS lesions typically possess a driver mutation associated with cancer development. Mutation in the TP53 tumour suppressor gene is present in 15-30% of pure DCIS lesions and in ~30% of invasive breast cancers. Mutations in TP53 are significantly associated with high-grade DCIS, the most likely form of DCIS to progress to invasive carcinoma. In this review, we summarise published evidence on the prevalence of mutant TP53 in DCIS (including all DCIS subtypes), discuss the availability of mouse models for the study of DCIS and highlight the need for functional studies of the role of TP53 in the development of DCIS and progression from DCIS to invasive disease.

Genomic analysis defines clonal relationships of ductal carcinoma in situ and recurrent invasive breast cancer

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the most common form of preinvasive breast cancer and, despite treatment, a small fraction (5-10%) of DCIS patients develop subsequent invasive disease. A fundamental biologic question is whether the invasive disease arises from tumor cells in the initial DCIS or represents new unrelated disease. To address this question, we performed genomic analyses on the initial DCIS lesion and paired invasive recurrent tumors in 95 patients together with single-cell DNA sequencing in a subset of cases. Our data show that in 75% of cases the invasive recurrence was clonally related to the initial DCIS, suggesting that tumor cells were not eliminated during the initial treatment. Surprisingly, however, 18% were clonally unrelated to the DCIS, representing new independent lineages and 7% of cases were ambiguous. This knowledge is essential for accurate risk evaluation of DCIS, treatment de-escalation strategies and the identification of predictive biomarkers.

Breast cancer risk stratification in women of screening age: Incremental effects of adding mammographic density, polygenic risk, and a gene panel

PURPOSE

There is great promise in breast cancer risk stratification to target screening and prevention. It is unclear whether adding gene panels to other risk tools improves breast cancer risk stratification and adds discriminatory benefit on a population basis.

METHODS

In total, 10,025 of 57,902 women aged 46 to 73 years in the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening study provided DNA samples. A case-control study was used to evaluate breast cancer risk assessment using polygenic risk scores (PRSs), cancer gene panel (n = 33), mammographic density (density residual [DR]), and risk factors collected using a self-completed 2-page questionnaire (Tyrer-Cuzick [TC] model version 8). In total, 525 cases and 1410 controls underwent gene panel testing and PRS calculation (18, 143, and/or 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]).

RESULTS

Actionable pathogenic variants (PGVs) in BRCA1/2 were found in 1.7% of cases and 0.55% of controls, and overall PGVs were found in 6.1% of cases and 1.3% of controls. A combined assessment of TC8-DR-SNP313 and gene panel provided the best risk stratification with 26.1% of controls and 9.7% of cases identified at <1.4% 10-year risk and 9.01% of controls and 23.3% of cases at ≥8% 10-year risk. Because actionable PGVs were uncommon, discrimination was identical with/without gene panel (with/without: area under the curve = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.64-0.70). Only 7 of 17 PGVs in cases resulted in actionable risk category change. Extended case (n = 644)-control (n = 1779) series with TC8-DR-SNP143 identified 18.9% of controls and only 6.4% of stage 2+ cases at <1.4% 10-year risk and 20.7% of controls and 47.9% of stage 2+ cases at ≥5% 10-year risk.

CONCLUSION

Further studies and economic analysis will determine whether adding panels to PRS is a cost-effective strategy for risk stratification.

Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in Young Women: Increasing Rates of Mastectomy and Variability in Endocrine Therapy Use

BACKGROUND

Young women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represent a unique cohort given considerations for future risk reduction and treatment effects on fertility and quality of life. We evaluated national patterns of care in the treatment of young women and the impact of those treatments on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

Women younger than 50 years of age diagnosed with pure DCIS from 2004 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) were identified. Clinical, demographic, and choice of local therapy are summarized and trended over time. OS was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 52,150 women were identified, and the most common surgical treatment was breast-conservation surgery (BCS; 59%). Bilateral mastectomy (BM) increased in frequency from 2004 to 2016 (11-27%; p < 0.001). In women < 40 years of age, BM (39%) surpassed BCS (35%) in 2010 with a continued upward trend. On multivariable analysis, no OS benefit of BM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, p = 0.90) or unilateral mastectomy (UM; HR 0.98, p = 0.80) was observed when compared with BCS + radiation therapy (RT). Inferior OS was seen with BCS, Black race, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, and tumor ≥ 2.5 cm (p ≤ 0.006). In ER+ patients, there was a significant difference in endocrine therapy (ET) use between BM (11%), UM (33%), and BCS (28%) compared with BCS + RT (64%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of BM for DCIS is increasing in younger patients and now exceeds breast-conservation approaches in women < 40 years of age with no evidence of improved OS. Among ER+ patients, the rates of ET are lower in the BM, UM, and BCS-alone groups compared with BCS + RT.

Prevalence of germline pathogenic variants in 22 cancer susceptibility genes in Swedish pediatric cancer patients

Up to 10% of pediatric cancer patients harbor pathogenic germline variants in one or more cancer susceptibility genes. A recent study from the US reported pathogenic variants in 22 out of 60 analyzed autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility genes, implicating 8.5% of pediatric cancer patients. Here we aimed to assess the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants in these 22 genes in a population-based Swedish cohort and to compare the results to those described in other populations. We found pathogenic variants in 10 of the 22 genes covering 3.8% of these patients. The prevalence of TP53 mutations was significantly lower than described in previous studies, which can largely be attributed to differences in tumor diagnosis distributions across the three cohorts. Matched family history for relatives allowed assessment of familial cancer incidence, however, no significant difference in cancer incidence was found in families of children carrying pathogenic variants compared to those who did not.

Risk of invasive breast cancer in relatives of patients with breast carcinoma in situ: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Wide implementation of mammography screening has resulted in increased numbers of women diagnosed with breast carcinoma in situ. We aimed to determine the risk of invasive breast cancer in relatives of patients with breast carcinoma in situ in comparison to the risk in relatives of patients with invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the occurrence of cancer in a nationwide cohort including all 5,099,172 Swedish women born after 1931 with at least one known first-degree relative. This was a record linkage study of Swedish family cancer datasets, including cancer registry data collected from January 1, 1958, to December 31, 2015. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer diagnosis for women with a family history of in situ and invasive breast cancer.

RESULTS

Having one first-degree relative with breast carcinoma in situ was associated with 50% increased risk of invasive breast cancer (SIR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.7) when compared to those who had no family history of invasive breast cancer or breast carcinoma in situ in either first- or second-degree relatives. Similarly, having one first-degree relative with invasive breast cancer was associated with 70% (1.7, 1.7-1.8) increased risk. The 10-year cumulative risk for women at age 50 with a relative with breast carcinoma in situ was 3.5% (2.9-3.9%) and was not significantly different from 3.7% (3.6-3.8%) risk for 50-year-old women with a relative with invasive breast cancer (95% confidence intervals overlapped).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of invasive breast cancer for women with a family history of breast carcinoma in situ was comparable to that for women with a family history of invasive breast cancer. Therefore, family history of breast carcinoma in situ should not be overlooked in recommendations for breast cancer prevention for women with a family history of breast cancer.

Genomic and epigenomic insights into the origin, pathogenesis, and clinical behavior of mantle cell lymphoma subtypes

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a mature B-cell neoplasm initially driven by CCND1 rearrangement with 2 molecular subtypes, conventional MCL (cMCL) and leukemic non-nodal MCL (nnMCL), that differ in their clinicobiological behavior. To identify the genetic and epigenetic alterations determining this diversity, we used whole-genome (n = 61) and exome (n = 21) sequencing (74% cMCL, 26% nnMCL) combined with transcriptome and DNA methylation profiles in the context of 5 MCL reference epigenomes. We identified that open and active chromatin at the major translocation cluster locus might facilitate the t(11;14)(q13;32), which modifies the 3-dimensional structure of the involved regions. This translocation is mainly acquired in precursor B cells mediated by recombination-activating genes in both MCL subtypes, whereas in 8% of cases the translocation occurs in mature B cells mediated by activation-induced cytidine deaminase. We identified novel recurrent MCL drivers, including CDKN1B, SAMHD1, BCOR, SYNE1, HNRNPH1, SMARCB1, and DAZAP1. Complex structural alterations emerge as a relevant early oncogenic mechanism in MCL, targeting key driver genes. Breakage-fusion-bridge cycles and translocations activated oncogenes (BMI1, MIR17HG, TERT, MYC, and MYCN), generating gene amplifications and remodeling regulatory regions. cMCL carried significant higher numbers of structural variants, copy number alterations, and driver changes than nnMCL, with exclusive alterations of ATM in cMCL, whereas TP53 and TERT alterations were slightly enriched in nnMCL. Several drivers had prognostic impact, but only TP53 and MYC aberrations added value independently of genomic complexity. An increasing genomic complexity, together with the presence of breakage-fusion-bridge cycles and high DNA methylation changes related to the proliferative cell history, defines patients with different clinical evolution.