A Randomized Trial of Two Remote Health Care Delivery Models on the Uptake of Genetic Testing and Impact on Patient-Reported Psychological Outcomes in Families With Pancreatic Cancer: The Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes.

METHODS

Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).

Germline DNA damage response gene mutations as predictive biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy

Background

Impaired DNA damage response (DDR) can affect immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) efficacy and lead to heightened immune activation. We assessed the impact of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline DDR mutations on ICI response and toxicity.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis of 131 cancer patients with germline DNA testing and ICI treatment was performed.

Results

Ninety-two patients were DDR-negative (DDR-), and 39 had ≥1 DDR mutation (DDR+). DDR+ patients showed higher objective response rates (ORRs) compared to DDR- in univariate and multivariable analyses, adjusting for age and metastatic disease (62% vs. 23%, unadjusted OR = 5.41; 95% CI, 2.41-12.14; adjusted OR 5.94; 95% CI, 2.35-15.06). Similar results were seen in mismatch repair (MMR), DDR pathways with intact MMR (DDR+MMRi), and homologous recombination (HR) subgroups versus DDR- (adjusted OR MMR = 24.52; 95% CI 2.72-221.38, DDR+MMRi = 4.26; 95% CI, 1.57-11.59, HR = 4.74; 95% CI, 1.49-15.11). DDR+ patients also had higher ORRs with concurrent chemotherapy (82% vs. 39% DDR-, p=0.03) or concurrent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50% vs. 5% DDR-, p=0.03). No significant differences in immune-related adverse events were observed between DDR+ and DDR- cohorts.

Conclusion

P/LP germline DDR mutations may enhance ICI response without significant additional toxicity.

Communication About Negative and Uncertain Results: Interactional Dilemmas During a Genetic Telehealth Consult

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

Early Ascertainment of Breast Cancer Diagnoses Comparing Self-Reported Questionnaires and Electronic Health Record Data Warehouse: The WISDOM Study

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to use real-world data sources that may be faster and more complete than self-reported data alone, and timelier than cancer registries, to ascertain breast cancer cases in the ongoing screening trial, the WISDOM Study.

METHODS

We developed a data warehouse procedural process (DWPP) to identify breast cancer cases from a subgroup of WISDOM participants (n = 11,314) who received breast-related care from a University of California Health Center in the period 2012-2021 by searching electronic health records (EHRs) in the University of California Data Warehouse (UCDW). Incident breast cancer diagnoses identified by the DWPP were compared with those identified by self-report via annual follow-up online questionnaires.

RESULTS

Our study identified 172 participants with confirmed breast cancer diagnoses in the period 2016-2021 by the following sources: 129 (75%) by both self-report and DWPP, 23 (13%) by DWPP alone, and 20 (12%) by self-report only. Among those with International Classification of Diseases 10th revision cancer diagnostic codes, no diagnosis was confirmed in 18% of participants.

CONCLUSION

For diagnoses that occurred ≥20 months before the January 1, 2022, UCDW data pull, WISDOM self-reported data via annual questionnaire achieved high accuracy (96%), as confirmed by the cancer registry. More rapid cancer ascertainment can be achieved by combining self-reported data with EHR data from a health system data warehouse registry, particularly to address self-reported questionnaire issues such as timing delays (ie, time lag between participant diagnoses and the submission of their self-reported questionnaire typically ranges from a month to a year) and lack of response. Although cancer registry reporting often is not as timely, it does not require verification as does the DWPP or self-report from annual questionnaires.

Abstract A029: A randomized study of two Strategies of remote Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) for family members of patients with pancreatic cancer

Background: Uptake of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in family members of cancer patients is suboptimal. The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated two strategies of remote genetic education and testing in relatives of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Methods: Eligible participants had: a first-degree relative with PDAC or had a known pathogenic germline variant (PGV) in one of thirteen PDAC predisposition genes (APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, or TP53) and a first- or second-degree relative with PDAC. Participants were cluster-randomized by family into one of two arms. Arm 1 included an interactive telemedicine session with a genetic counselor, followed by genetic testing at a commercial laboratory. Arm 2 involved remote online genetic education and testing at the commercial laboratory without the interactive session. The primary outcome was uptake of genetic testing across study arms, which was compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. Results: Between 5/8/2019 and 6/1/2021, 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n=296 Arm 1; n=305 Arm 2). The uptake of genetic testing was 87% (257/296) in Arm 1 and 93% (284/305) in Arm 2 (p=0.014). Participants in Arm 1 were significantly less likely to obtain genetic testing compared to Arm 2 (Adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). BRCA2, ATM, CDKN2A and PALB2 were the most common PDAC susceptibility genes in which PGVs were identified. Conclusions: Remote methods of genetic education and testing are successful alternatives to traditional germline susceptibility testing.

Citation Format: Nicolette J. Rodriguez, C. Sloane Furniss, Matthew B. Yurgelun, Chinedu Ukaegbu, Pamela E. Constantinou, Ileana Fortes, Alyson Caruso, Alison N. Schwartz, Jill E. Stopfer, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Barbara Kenner, Scott H. Nelson, Sydney Okumura, Alicia Y. Zhou, Tara B. Coffin, Hajime Uno, Miki Horiguchi, Allyson J. Ocean, Florencia McAllister, Andrew M. Lowy, Scott M. Lippman, Alison P. Klein, Lisa Madlensky, Gloria M. Petersen, Judy E. Garber, Michael G. Goggins, Anirban Maitra, Sapna Syngal. A randomized study of two Strategies of remote Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) for family members of patients with pancreatic cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Pancreatic Cancer; 2022 Sep 13-16; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(22 Suppl):Abstract nr A029.

Co-Localization of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) and Peritoneal Mesothelioma: A Case Series

PURPOSE

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is associated with increased risk of additional cancers. In this study, synchronous GIST, and peritoneal mesothelioma (PM) were characterized to evaluate the relationship between these two cancers.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients diagnosed with both GIST and PM between July 2010 and June 2021. Patient demographics, past tumor history, intraoperative reports, cross-sectional imaging, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scoring, somatic next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis, and histology were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of 137 patients who underwent primary GIST resection from July 2010 to June 2021, 8 (5.8%) were found to have synchronous PM, and 4 patients (50%) had additional cancers and/or benign tumors. Five (62.5%) were male, and the median age at GIST diagnosis was 57 years (range: 45-76). Seventy-five percent of GISTs originated from the stomach. Of the eight patients, one patient had synchronous malignant mesothelioma (MM), and the remaining had well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma (WDPM), which were primarily located in the region of the primary GIST (89%). The median PCI score was 2 in the WDPM patients. NGS of GIST revealed oncogenic KIT exon 11 (62.5%), PDGFRA D842V (25%), or SDH (12.5%) mutations, while NGS of the MM revealed BAP1 and PBRM1 alterations.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 17 GIST patients undergoing resection in this series have PM, which is significantly higher than expected if these two diseases were considered as independent events. Our results indicate that synchronous co-occurrence of GIST and PM is an underrecognized finding, suggesting a possible relationship that deserves further investigation.

Abstract P5-19-04: The WISDOM study: Reducing sequential steps and implementing parallel workflows in pragmatic trials

Background:The WISDOM Study is a preference-tolerant pragmatic study, comparing annual mammograms to a risk-based screening. Eligibility includes women ages 40-74 years with no history of breast cancer or DCIS. Participants are enrolled to one study arm: annual screening or risk-based screening (includes genetic testing). Pragmatic trials often involve gathering real-time data over multiple time points. Collecting real-time data sequentially can limit enrollment, delay study assignments, and reduce participant engagement. The WISDOM Study has identified such bottlenecks and has implemented parallel workflows, reducing the overall wait time for participants to complete required study steps. These data highlight how moving participants through the study more efficiently can improve enrollment and retention and inform other pragmatic trials. Methods: WISDOM participants have the option to either choose their study arm or be randomized into one as part of the preference tolerant randomized trial design. Participants then complete breast health questionnaires and genetic testing (if in the risk-based arm). This information is analyzed by the WISDOM breast cancer risk assessment algorithm, the result of which is then communicated to the participant through a screening assignment letter (SAL). Specific data elements, such as breast density found participants’ mammogram reports and genetic testing results are required for study randomization process and risk assessment calculations, respectively. The WISDOM randomization algorithm is stratified by several factors, including breast cancer risk estimated using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, which uses mammographic density as a key input variable. The study team changed the workflow to allow participants to proceed to randomization without specific information by imputing both density and risk. Additionally, a parallel workflow improvement process was implemented to obtain mammogram reports while genetic testing was being completed. Results: Before the weighted BCSC and imputed density algorithms were introduced, it took an average of 47 days to randomize participants after completion of the baseline enrollment questionnaires. Now, participants are randomized immediately which has reduced delays by 100%. Prior to implementing the parallel workflow for genetic testing and mammogram ascertainment, genetic testing kits were sent only after mammogram reports were collected and validated. The expected turnaround time for genetic testing results was 30-60 days and on average, results were returned to participants in 42 days. Streamlining the study design to obtain mammogram reports while participants complete their genetic testing has shortened the time for participants to receive their screening assignment letters (SALs) from an average of 160 days to 78 days, a reduction by 49%. In comparison, participants in the annual arm of the study who do not complete genetic testing, receive their SALs after an average of 38 days from enrollment. This is due to long wait times to obtain mammographic densities from outside medical facilities. Conclusions: Creating parallel data ascertainment workflows and reducing sequential steps in the study process has increased completion of individual enrollment activities. Participants now are randomized immediately upon joining the study and have access to their SALs and genetic results more rapidly. This approach eliminated randomization wait times and improved efficiency of the early in the enrollment process. We are evaluating the impact on participant retention going forward. Workflow efficiency is critical to improve the patient experience, and our learnings can inform future trial design, particularly for studies requiring data from outside sources.

Citation Format: Tomiyuri Lewis, Stephanie Flores, Leah Sabacan, Patricia Choy, Halle Thannickal, Yiwey Shieh, Jeffrey Tice, Elad Ziv, Lisa Madlensky, Martin Eklund, Christina Yau, Amie Blanco, Barry Tong, Deborah Goodman, Nancy Anderson, Heather Harvey, Steele Fors, Hannah L Park, Samrrah Raouf, Skye Stewart, Janet Wernisch, Barbara Koenig, Celia Kaplan, Robert Hiatt, Neil Wenger, Vivian Lee, Diane Heditsian, Susie Brain, Dolores Moorehead, Barbara A Parker, Alexander Borowsky, Hoda Anton-Culver, Arash Naeim, Andrea Kaster, Laura van ‘t Veer, Andrea Z LaCroix, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Deepa Sheth, Agustin Garcia, Rachel Lancaster, Michael Plaza, Wisdom Study, Athena Breast Health Network Investigators, Advocate Partners, Allison S Fiscalini, Laura Esserman. The WISDOM study: Reducing sequential steps and implementing parallel workflows in pragmatic trials [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 P5-19-04.

Abstract P5-19-01: The impact of streamlined processes and patient-directed messaging to improve enrollment in a remote, pragmatic clinical trial

Background Recent advances in technology have made it possible to conduct remote clinical trials that allow individuals to participate from home with comfort, privacy, and ease. Despite these advances, challenges persist in running remote trials, such as survey question redundancies, lack of patient-initiated data-sharing tools, and unclear patient communication around critical enrollment steps. The Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk (WISDOM) Study is a pragmatic, preference-tolerant randomized control breast cancer screening trial comparing personalized risk-based screening to traditional, annual screening. The study population includes women ages 40-74 without a history of breast cancer or DCIS. Since 2016, study enrollment has been available to all women in the U.S. who meet study eligibility criteria. Since October 2020, WISDOM has implemented multiple strategies to improve participant experience: participant-initiated data-sharing tools and clear participant messaging. This abstract presents the efficacy of these interventions as they relate to increasing patient enrollment in remote, pragmatic clinical trials. Methods The WISDOM Study online enrollment process includes registration, participant study arm selection or randomization, online consent, and enrollment (submission of multiple study surveys over a secure, online platform). Barriers to online enrollment were uncovered through an internally-conducted needs assessment of participants who enrolled between 2019-2020, and participant feedback obtained through phone interviews conducted by WISDOM’s embedded ethics study. Improvements to our online enrollment procedures were executed in October 2020 and included: improving the clarity of study arm selection options, streamlining data collection surveys, and enacting a secure, patient-initiated online data-sharing tool and an online portal feature with auto-launch of critical information. Study metrics were obtained through Google Analytics and Salesforce. Results Prior to the end of 2020, only 62% of the 30,046 participants who registered for the WISDOM Study completed study enrollment. After improving the enrollment process, of the 5,334 participants registered for the study between Jan-June 2021, 69% completed the enrollment process finishing both the online consent and survey forms. Conversion from consent to enrollment went from 78% in January 2020 to 93% in June 2021. Currently, 56% participants complete enrollment in one day. Streamlining online patient questionnaires led to an increase in completion rates, with 75% of participants completing their yearly surveys, compared to 59% prior to April 2021. A secure patient upload feature for data sharing led to 1,054 participants successfully sharing their mammogram reports with WISDOM between March - June 2021. Previously, mammogram reports were missing for 20% of enrolled participants. This feature has enabled WISDOM to process 300 additional mammogram reports per month. Integration of an auto-launch feature in the participant’s portal in Feb 2021 has led to a 17% increase in participants viewing their screening recommendations in Yr 1. Prior to auto-launch, only 59% (n=6328) of Yr 1 screening recommendations and 61% (n=3681) of genetic testing reports were viewed by participants. Since implementation, the numbers increased to 78% (n=8406) and 85% (n=5160), respectively. Conclusions. Streamlining data to the most essential elements, and minimizing the steps required to share clinical documents, complete questionnaires and open key study notification is essential to improving enrollment rates in virtual, pragmatic trials. Patient-initiated data-sharing tools such as the ability for participants to share documents through secure, online portals is one example of success.

Citation Format: Patricia Choy, Tomiyuri Lewis, Stephanie Flores, Leah Sabacan, Halle Thannickal, Steffanie Goodman, Yiwey Shieh, Lisa Madlensky, Jeffrey A. Tice, Elad Ziv, Martin Eklund, Amie Blanco, Barry Tong, Deborah Goodman, Nancy Anderson, Heather Harvey, Steele Fors, Hannah Lui Park, Antonia Petruse, Skye Stewart, Samrrah Raouf, Janet Wernisch, Barbara Koenig, Celia Kaplan, Robert Hiatt, Neil Wenger, Vivian Lee, Diane Heditsian, Susie Brain, Dolores Moorehead, Barbara A Parker, Alexander Borowsky, Hoda Anton-Culver, Arash Naeim, Andrea Kaster, Laura van 't Veer, Andrea Z LaCroix, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Deepa Sheth, Agustin Garcia, Rachel Lancaster, Jennifer James, Galen Joseph, Wisdom Study, Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocates, Allison Stover Fiscallini, Laura Esserman. The impact of streamlined processes and patient-directed messaging to improve enrollment in a remote, pragmatic clinical trial [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 P5-19-01.

Abstract PO-013: Comparison of novel healthcare delivery models on the uptake of genetic education and testing in families with a history of pancreatic cancer: The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study

Background: Roughly 7–10% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have a deleterious germline variant. Although identification of germline variants in family members has implications for cancer surveillance and can lead to early cancer detection and interception for PDAC, as well as other cancers, cascade genetic testing rates are low. The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluates novel methods of providing genetic education and testing for individuals at risk for hereditary PDAC. Methods: Eligible participants had: (1) a first- or second-degree relative with a diagnosis of PDAC and a known familial germline variant in APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, or TP53 (Known Familial Mutation (KFM)), (2) or were first-degree relatives of PDAC patients (no KFM). Participants were recruited through six academic centers, patient advocacy organizations and online outreach. Enrollment occurred through the study website (www.GENERATEstudy.org). All study participation, including genetic testing via a at home saliva sample kit, was done remotely. Participants were cluster randomized at the family level into one of two arms. Arm 1 (Doxy.me plus Color Genomics) included remote genetic education and testing through a video-based telemedicine platform (Doxy.me) and physician-mediated testing through Color Genomics. Arm 2 included remote genetic education and testing through Color Genomics only. Results: Between 5/8/2019–6/01/2021, 423 families were randomized, comprising 595 participants. Recruitment occurred through patient invitation via healthcare providers (n=128, 21.5%), family members (n=271, 45.5%), friends, advocacy groups, and online outreach (n=223, 37.5%). Participants were referred from the six GENERATE academic centers (n=270, 45.4%) and other institutions (n=325, 54.6%). Study participants were 52.5 years on average, primarily identified as White (n=577, 97%) and from the Northeast (n=184, 30.9%), Midwest (n=154, 25.9%), South (n=158, 26.6%) and West (n=99, 16.6%). Participants were randomized into each arm (n=296 Doxy.me plus Color Genomics; n=299 Color Genomics only). To date, 527 (88.6%) participants have ordered genetic testing. The uptake of genetic testing was 253/296 (85.5%) in the Doxy.me plus Color Genomics arm and 274/299 (91.6%) in the Color Genomics only arm (p=0.049, generalized mixed-effects model). A total of 82 PDAC associated pathogenic variants were identified. The most frequently detected variants were BRCA2 (n=32), ATM (n=25) and PALB2 (n=6). Additionally, 13 non-PDAC associated pathogenic variants and 20 low penetrance variants were detected. Conclusions: Remote methods of genetic education and testing are successful alternatives to traditional cascade testing, with genetic testing rates nearly 90%. Participant follow up will assess if satisfaction with decision making, cancer-risk distress, knowledge gained, family communication, and uptake of surveillance were impacted by the mode of delivery of pre-test genetic education.

Citation Format: Nicolette J. Rodriguez, Constance S. Furniss, Matthew B. Yurgelun, Chinedu Ukaegbu, Pamela E. Constantinou, Alison N. Schwartz, Jill Stopfer, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Barbara Kenner, Scott Nelson, Sydney Okumura, Sherman Law, Alicia Y. Zhou, Tara B. Coffin, Hajime Uno, Allyson Ocean, Florencia McAllister, Andrew M. Lowy, Scott M. Lippman, Alison P. Klein, Lisa Madlensky, Gloria M. Petersen, Judy E. Garber, Michael G. Goggins, Anirban Maitra, Sapna Syngal. Comparison of novel healthcare delivery models on the uptake of genetic education and testing in families with a history of pancreatic cancer: The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Special Conference on Pancreatic Cancer; 2021 Sep 29-30. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(22 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-013.

Novel Models of Genetic Education and Testing for Pancreatic Cancer Interception: Preliminary Results from the GENERATE Study

Up to 10% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) carry underlying germline pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes. The GENetic Education Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study aimed to evaluate novel methods of genetic education and testing in relatives of patients with PDAC. Eligible individuals had a family history of PDAC and a relative with a germline pathogenic variant in APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, or TP53 genes. Participants were recruited at six academic cancer centers and through social media campaigns and patient advocacy efforts. Enrollment occurred via the study website (https://GENERATEstudy.org) and all participation, including collecting a saliva sample for genetic testing, could be done from home. Participants were randomized to one of two remote methods that delivered genetic education about the risks of inherited PDAC and strategies for surveillance. The primary outcome of the study was uptake of genetic testing. From 5/8/2019 to 5/6/2020, 49 participants were randomized to each of the intervention arms. Overall, 90 of 98 (92%) of randomized participants completed genetic testing. The most frequently detected pathogenic variants included those in BRCA2 (N = 15, 17%), ATM (N = 11, 12%), and CDKN2A (N = 4, 4%). Participation in the study remained steady throughout the onset of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Preliminary data from the GENERATE study indicate success of remote alternatives to traditional cascade testing, with genetic testing rates over 90% and a high rate of identification of germline pathogenic variant carriers who would be ideal candidates for PDAC interception approaches. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Preliminary data from the GENERATE study indicate success of remote alternatives for pancreatic cancer genetic testing and education, with genetic testing uptake rates over 90% and a high rate of identification of germline pathogenic variant carriers who would be ideal candidates for pancreatic cancer interception.

Elevated risk thresholds predict endocrine risk-reducing medication use in the Athena screening registry

Risk-reducing endocrine therapy use, though the benefit is validated, is extremely low. The FDA has approved tamoxifen and raloxifene for a 5-year Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) risk ≥ 1.67%. We examined the threshold at which high-risk women are likely to be using endocrine risk-reducing therapies among Athena Breast Health Network participants from 2011-2018. We identified high-risk women by a 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67% and those in the top 10% and 2.5% risk thresholds by age. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of current medication use based on these thresholds using logistic regression. One thousand two hundred and one (1.2%) of 104,223 total participants used medication. Of the 33,082 participants with 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67%, 772 (2.3%) used medication. Of 2445 in the top 2.5% threshold, 209 (8.6%) used medication. Participants whose 5-year risk exceeded 1.67% were more likely to use medication than those whose risk was below this threshold, OR 3.94 (95% CI = 3.50-4.43). The top 2.5% was most strongly associated with medication usage, OR 9.50 (8.13-11.09) compared to the bottom 97.5%. Women exceeding a 5-year BCRAT ≥ 1.67% had modest medication use. We demonstrate that women in the top 2.5% have higher odds of medication use than those in the bottom 97.5% and compared to a risk of 1.67%. The top 2.5% threshold would more effectively target medication use and is being tested prospectively in a randomized control clinical trial.

Prevalence of cancer susceptibility variants in patients with multiple Lynch syndrome related cancers

Along with early-onset cancers, multiple primary cancers (MPCs) are likely resulting from increased genetic susceptibility; however, the associated predisposition genes or prevalence of the pathogenic variants genes in MPC patients are often unknown. We screened 71 patients with MPC of the stomach, colorectal, and endometrium, sequencing 65 cancer predisposition genes. A subset of 19 patients with early-onset MPC of stomach and colorectum were further evaluated for variants in cancer related genes using both normal and tumor whole exome sequencing. Among 71 patients with MPCs, variants classified to be pathogenic were observed in 15 (21.1%) patients and affected Lynch Syndrome (LS) genes: MLH1 (n = 10), MSH6 (n = 2), PMS2 (n = 2), and MSH2 (n = 1). All carriers had tumors with high microsatellite instability and 13 of them (86.7%) were early-onset, consistent with LS. In 19 patients with early-onset MPCs, loss of function (LoF) variants in RECQL5 were more prevalent in non-LS MPC than in matched sporadic cancer patients (OR = 31.6, 2.73–1700.6, p = 0.001). Additionally, there were high-confidence LoF variants at FANCG and CASP8 in two patients accompanied by somatic loss of heterozygosity in tumor, respectively. The results suggest that genetic screening should be considered for synchronous cancers and metachronous MPCs of the LS tumor spectrum, particularly in early-onset. Susceptibility variants in non-LS genes for MPC patients may exist, but evidence for their role is more elusive than for LS patients.

Germline alterations among Hispanic men with prostate cancer

10534

Background: With the growing indications for germline testing in prostate cancer (PCa), there is accumulating evidence that African American and Hispanic men with PCa are significantly under-tested compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) men. Given this, little is known about the pathogenic germline variant landscape in Hispanic men with PCa. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 17,256 men with PCa who underwent diagnostic germline testing through a commercial laboratory (Invitae) from 2015-2020. Self-identified Hispanic and NHW men were selected for comparative analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (PLP) germline alterations in Hispanic men among 25 genes associated with PCa. Secondary endpoints included comparison of PLP rates in Hispanic vs NHW men, the rate of specific PLP alterations, and the rate of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Fisher’s exact test was used to compare germline alteration rates for significance. Results: We identified 508 Hispanic and 12,542 NHW men with PCa who underwent testing during the study period. Median age at the time of testing was 69 vs 67 years in Hispanic vs NHW cohorts. A family history of PCa was reported in 21.1% (N=108) vs 27.3% (N=3428) in the Hispanic vs NHW cohorts, respectively (p=0.002). The PLP alteration rate was 7.1% in the Hispanic cohort and this rate was numerically lower but not significantly different when compared to the NHW cohort (9.7%) (p=0.058). A significantly higher rate of VUS was seen in the Hispanic cohort (Table). The four most frequently detected genes with PLP alterations in both cohorts were ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2. Only the rate of CHEK2 alterations was significantly different between cohorts among all 25 genes analyzed (Table). Conclusions: In this analysis, the PLP alteration rate among Hispanic men was 7.1%, a much higher rate than has been previously reported, and the germline genomic landscape was similar to that of NHW men. The VUS rate was significantly higher among Hispanic men, a known consequence of under-testing among minority populations.These data support germline testing in Hispanic men with prostate cancer and emphasize the importance of improving testing rates.[Table: see text]

Analysis of germline alterations and testing patterns in Hispanic men with prostate cancer

Background: Little is known about the prevalence of germline alterations in Hispanic men with prostate cancer (PC). Here, we examine the rates of germline alterations in Hispanic men with PC, compare these rates to non-Hispanic white men, and examine factors associated with clinicians offering testing. Methods: Single center, retrospective analysis of patients (pts) with PC who self-identify as Hispanic and meet the NCCN criteria for germline testing. Pts who consented for testing underwent a commercial multigene germline assay. Among those tested, the proportion of pathogenic alterations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were computed in 20 genes associated with germline alterations in PC. This was compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) pts who also underwent germline testing. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess clinical and demographic factors associated with clinicians offering germline testing and/or genetics referral. Results: We identified 136 Hispanic men with PC eligible for germline testing between 2018-2020. 26.1% (n=34) of pts underwent germline testing and among those tested, 14.7% (n=5/34) had a pathogenic alteration detected. Median age of the cohort was 70 years and 46.3% (n=63) had metastatic disease. Spanish was the primary language for 50% (n=68) and 14.0% (n=19) of pts had at least 1 first-degree relative with PC. Alterations were detected in ATM (n=2), CHEK2 (n=1), MSH2 (n=1), MSH6 (n=1). When stratified by disease status, the rate of pathogenic alterations was 7.7% (n=1/13) in localized and 19.0% (n=4/21) in metastatic disease. When compared to NHW pts who underwent testing (n=139), the rate of pathogenic alterations was not significantly different (14.7% in Hispanic vs 12.2% in NWH, p=0.77). The rate of VUS in Hispanic pts was significantly higher than NHW pts (20.6% in Hispanic vs 7.2% in NWH, p=0.047). In a multivariate model examining the factors associated with receipt of testing in Hispanic men (Table), the presence of metastatic disease and a family history of PC were positively associated with testing. Spanish as a primary language was negatively associated with testing. Age was not a significant predictor. Conclusions: Among Hispanic men who underwent germline testing, there was a similar rate of pathogenic germline alterations compared to NHW men. Among Hispanic men, primary Spanish speakers appear to have lower rates of germline testing. Bilingual strategies are needed to improve rates of testing to ensure equity in germline testing for all patients. [Table: see text]

Abstract OT-21-01: Personalized breast cancer screening in a population-based study: Women informed to screen depending on measures of risk (WISDOM)

Background: WISDOM is a 100,000 healthy women preference-tolerant, pragmatic study comparing traditional annual screening to personalized risk-based breast screening. The novelty of WISDOM personalized screening is the integration of previously validated genetic and clinical risk factors (age, family history, breast biopsy results, ethnicity, mammographic density) into a single risk assessment model that directs the starting age, timing, and frequency of screening. The goal of WISDOM is to determine if personalized screening, compared to annual screening, is as safe, less morbid, enables prevention, and is more accepted by women. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02620852. Methods: Women aged 40-74 years with no history of breast cancer, DCIS or previous double mastectomy can join the study online at wisdomstudy.org. Participants can either elect randomization or self-select a study arm. Then, they provide electronic consent and sign the Release for Medical Information via DocuSign. For all participants, 5-year risk of developing breast cancer is calculated according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model. Participants in the personalized arm undergo panel-based mutation testing (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, STK11, CDH1, ATM, PALB2, and CHEK2), and their 5-year risk is calculated using the BCSC score combined with a Polygenic Risk Score (BCSC-PRS) that includes 229 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) known to increase breast cancer risk. The SNPs and mutations are assessed by saliva-based testing through Color Genomics. Five-year risk level thresholds are used to stratify participants as low-, moderate- and high risk. Risk stratification determines age to start, stop, and frequency of screening in the personalized arm. Accrual: As of July 2020 the WISDOM Study is open to all eligible women in the United States. To date, 38,762 eligible women have registered, and 28,706 women have consented to participate in the trial. The median age is 56 years. Seventy-seven percent of participants are Caucasian, 2% African-American, 5% Asian, and 8% of self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. WISDOM is partnering with Blue Cross Blue Shield Association for regional plan opt-in coverage, self-insured companies (Salesforce, Genentech, Qualcomm, CalPERS) and Medi-Cal (Inland Empire Health Plan) using a coverage with evidence progression approach. Accrual expansion and diversity: To ensure that resulting data are meaningful and potentially practice-changing for all populations of women, the WISDOM Study is enhancing the diversity of our participant population by establishing WISDOM sites in diverse areas with large African-American (Alabama, Louisiana, Illinois) and Latina (Florida) populations. These new recruitment sites, intentionally selected for the diverse communities they serve, have established partnerships with community organizations and outreach navigators. Additionally, we have translated the WISDOM Study to Spanish to facilitate access by Latina communities. With the engagement of patient advocates and community partnerships, expanding diversity in the study population will strengthen our scientific knowledge of breast cancer risk and improve access to personalized breast cancer screening recommendations for all women. Enrollment will continue through 2022. Conclusions: Results of 5 years follow-up will enable us to demonstrate whether personalized screening improves outcomes for future patients and it improves healthcare value by reducing screen volumes and costs without jeopardizing outcomes.

Citation Format: Irene Acerbi, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Mandy Che, Yiwey Shieh, Lisa Madlensky, Jeffrey Tice, Elad Ziv, Martin Eklund, Amie Blanco, Barry Tong, Deborah Goodman, Lamees Nassereddine, Nancy Anderson, Heather Harvey, Steele Fors, Hannah L Park, Antonia Petruse, Skye Stewart, Janet Wernisch, Larissa Risty, Ian Hurley, Barbara Koenig, Celia Kaplan, Robert Hiatt, Neil Wenger, Vivian Lee, Diane Heditsian, Susie Brain, Leah Sabacan, Tianyi Wang, Barbara A Parker, Alexander Borowsky, Hoda Anton-Culver, Arash Naeim, Andrea Kaster, Melinda Talley, Laura van 't Veer, Andrea Z LaCroix, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Deepa Sheth, Augustin Garcia, Rachel Lancaster, Wisdom Study and Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocate Partners, Laura Esserman. Personalized breast cancer screening in a population-based study: Women informed to screen depending on measures of risk (WISDOM) [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-21-01.

Abstract OT-22-01: Opportunities and lessons learned in using electronic health record patient portal (MyChart) for recruitment to the population-based WISDOM study

Background: WISDOM is a preference-tolerant, pragmatic study comparing annual mammogram screening to personalized, risk-based breast screening in healthy women with a target accrual of 100,000. This sizable recruitment goal requires creative and broad-based strategies that are not typical for traditional clinical research. One of the recruitment methods is use of an electronic health record patient portal (Epic’s MyChart) to invite patients to participate in research. We tested various MyChart implementation strategies across WISDOM recruitment sites and report response rates, barriers and lessons learned. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02620852. Methods: Women aged 40-74 years with no history of breast cancer, DCIS, or double mastectomy can join the WISDOM Study online at wisdomstudy.org. Participants either elect to be randomized or self-select one of the study arms, the control (annual mammogram screening) arm or the treatment (personalized, risk-based breast screening) arm. All study steps can be completed electronically, with no requirement to travel to a study site. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) was the first WISDOM site to gain approval to use MyChart as a recruitment tool as part of the Clinical Translational Science Institute pilot in Spring 2018. The pilot was designed to demonstrate feasibility, patient response, and recruitment metrics. Following UCLA’s pilot, additional WISDOM sites received approval to use MyChart; however, implementation differed across sites based on local medical center leadership decisions. MyChart Implementation: As of July 2020, use of MyChart is ongoing at five of WISDOM’s six initial recruitment sites (UCLA, Sanford Health, UCSF, UCSD, UCI). Three sites (UCLA, Stanford, and UCSF) implemented MyChart broadly, and two sites (UCI and UCSD) are phasing in MyChart recruitment. UCLA and Sanford Health implemented MyChart recruitment through a centralized approach targeting all eligible patients and sending a MyChart invitation with a link to the study’s enrollment website. UCSF was approved to send WISDOM information on the MyChart portal, but the patients must opt in to learn more by outreach from a research coordinator. UCSD and UCI approaches are more limited requiring departmental or primary care provider approval for communications to be sent to patients. Results: MyChart enabled direct communication to a large number of potential study participants at UCLA and Sanford Health (UCLA 107,829, Sanford Health 86,684) during a 12-month period. The experiences of both sites were similar in that 50% of individuals read the MyChart message, 2.5-5% registered for additional information, and 1.5-2.5% consented to participate. UCSF’s implementation approach was similar with 8005 individuals invited, 6.6% indicating interest to participate, and 2.4% consenting. Although the number of consented participants represented a small portion of the total women consented to join the study to date, the recruitment rates from using MyChart were 2.5-10X higher compared to sites that did not use it or were in pilot phase. Participating sites saw 30%-50% increased recruitment rates during periods when MyChart messages were in use. Implementations at the departmental (UCSD) and primary care provider level (UCI) demonstrated similar trends (3.8% and 3% consented respectively), albeit with smaller samples. Conclusions: Use of electronic health record patient portal (MyChart) recruitment for the WISDOM Study increased enrollment rate by site and is a cost-effective approach to recruiting for large scale trials with broad eligibility criteria like the WISDOM Study.

Citation Format: Antonio Petruse, Alyssa Rocha, Liliana Johansen, Neil Wenger, Mandy Che, Steele Fors, Hannah L Park, Janet Wernisch, Irene Acerbi, Allison S Fiscalini, Jasmin Hassam, Andrea LaCroix, Barbara Parker, Lisa Madlensky, Laura Van't Veer, Celia Kaplan, Hoda Anton-Culver, Andrea Kaster, Skye Stewart, Samrrah Rouf, Alexander Borowsky, Ian Hurley, Robert Hiatt, Vivian Lee, Diane Heditsian, Susie Brain, Olufunmilayo Olopade, Deepa Sheth, Laura Esserman, Wisdom Study and Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocate Partners, Arash Naeim. Opportunities and lessons learned in using electronic health record patient portal (MyChart) for recruitment to the population-based WISDOM study [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-22-01.

Abstract P5-08-01: Breast cancer risk thresholds as a predictor of chemoprevention uptake in the Athena Breast Health Network

Background: Large-scale chemoprevention trials validated endocrine risk reduction strategies to lower breast cancer risk. We sought to understand the risk at which women are likely to adopt chemoprevention. A 5-year Gail risk of 1.67% or above is considered elevated risk, and the FDA indication for prescribing chemoprevention. We examined chemoprevention use in the Athena Breast Health Network (Athena), which includes approximately 100,000 women who are screened by mammography at Sanford Health, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Los Angeles, UC San Diego, and UC San Francisco.

Methods: We calculated the Gail risk score for women who had completed an Athena online intake survey distributed before being seen at screening centers; this survey included questions about chemoprevention usage. First, we analyzed 16,518 surveys of 9,318 unique women without breast cancer or DCIS who received breast cancer screening at UCSF from 2011- 2018 and who consented to research. These women also self-reported use of chemoprevention. We stratified Gail risk scores by a threshold of 1.67%, and by percentiles to identify those women in the top 2.5% by age. We compared current chemoprevention use in these different breast cancer risk strata, and factors associated with its use. An analysis including all 100,000 women in the Athena Network will be presented at SABCS.

Results: Overall, at UCSF, 48 of 9,318 women (0.51%) reported current chemoprevention use. The 5-year Gail risk was greater than 1.66% in 3,675 of 9,318 women (39%), of whom 205 (2.2%) were in the top 2.5% of risk by age. Chemoprevention use was reported by 13 of 205 (6.3%) women in the top 2.5% of risk by age (mean Gail risk 5.6%), as compared to 41 of 3,675 (1.1%) who were at Gail above 1.66% (mean Gail = 3.9%). Women in the top 2.5% and those with Gail risk >1.66% were significantly more likely to be using chemoprevention p< 0.01 for each respectively). Chemoprevention uptake was correlated with the joint effect of the top 2.5% of risk by age and increasing Gail score (OR = 10.25; P = 0.009). Preliminary results were consistent among the 100,000 women in the Athena registry (analysis ongoing). In addition, chemoprevention use was more likely in older women (OR = 1.10; P < 0.01, for every year of age) and in those women with Ashkenazi ancestry on both sides of the family compared to none (OR = 2.32; P = 0.02). Race and education were not associated with use of chemoprevention.

Discussion: Women with higher Gail scores in the top 2.5% of risk by age are positively associated with current chemoprevention use (6.34%). Importantly, this analysis presents a risk-stratified, population-level risk reduction strategy, using the top 2.5% risk threshold by age. It provides an opportunity to specifically target chemoprevention to women at highest need to reduce their breast cancer risk. In the WISDOM Study (NCT02620852), we are prospectively testing active outreach based on breast cancer risk in the top 2.5% of risk by age, and have developed a breast health decisions aid to standardize communication of risk-reducing options.

Citation Format: Yash S Huilgol, Holly Keane, Yiwey Shieh, Jeffrey Tice, Elad Ziv, Lisa Madlensky, Leah Sabacan, Irene Acerbi, Mandy Che, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Hoda Anton-Culver, Alexander D Borowsky, Sharon Hunt, Arash Naeim, Barbara Parker, Laura J van 't Veer, Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocate Partners and Laura J Esserman. Breast cancer risk thresholds as a predictor of chemoprevention uptake in the Athena Breast Health Network [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-08-01.

Abstract OT3-03-02: Personalized breast cancer screening in a population-based study: Women informed to screen depending on measures of risk (WISDOM)

Background: WISDOM is a 100,000 healthy women preference-tolerant, pragmatic study comparing traditional annual screening to personalized risk-based breast screening. The novelty of WISDOM personalized screening is the integration of previously validated genetic and clinical risk factors (age, family history, breast biopsy results, ethnicity, mammographic density) into a single risk assessment model that directs the starting age, timing, and frequency of screening. The goal of WISDOM is to determine if personalized screening, compared to annual screening, is as safe, less morbid, enables prevention, and is more accepted by women. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02620852.

Methods: Women aged 40-74 years with no history of breast cancer or DCIS, and no previous double mastectomy can join the study online at wisdomstudy.org. Participants can either elect randomization or self-select a study arm. Then, they can provide electronic consent and sign the Release for Medical Information via DocuSign. For all participants, 5-year risk of developing breast cancer is calculated according to the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model. Participants in the personalized arm undergo panel-based mutation testing (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, STK11, CDH1, ATM, PALB2, and CHEK2), and their 5-year risk is calculated using the BCSC score combined with a Polygenic Risk Score (BCSC-PRS) that includes 75 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) known to increase breast cancer risk (will increase to 229). The SNPs and mutations are assessed by saliva-based testing through Color Genomics. 5-year risk level thresholds are used to stratify for low-, moderate- and high risk. Risk stratification determines age to start, stop, and frequency of screening.

Accrual: As of July 2019, the WISDOM study is open to all eligible women in California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and New Jersey. To date, 30,392 eligible women have registered, and 21,392 women have consented to participate in the trial. The median age was 56 years. 85% of participants were Caucasian, 2% African-American, and 5% Asian. 6% self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. WISDOM is actively partnering with Blue Cross Blue Shield Association for national coverage, self-insured companies (Salesforce, Genentech, Qualcomm, CalPERS) and Medi-Cal (Inland Empire Health Plan) using a coverage with evidence progression approach.

Accrual expansion and diversity: To strengthen generalizability, the WISDOM Study is enhancing the diversity of our potential participant population by expanding to other states (Alabama, Louisiana), and partnering with other health insurers and self-insured companies. Future expansion regions include Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Montana, and New Mexico. Additionally, we have translated the whole study experience to Spanish to further reach Spanish-speaking communities. With the engagement of patient advocates and community partnerships, expanding diversity recruitment will strengthen our scientific knowledge of breast cancer risk and increase access to personalized breast cancer screening recommendations for all women. WISDOM enrollment will continue through 2020.

Conclusions: Results at 5 years will enable us to demonstrate that personalized screening improves healthcare value by reducing screen volumes and costs without jeopardizing outcomes.

Citation Format: Mandy Che, Allison Stover Fiscallini, Irene Acerbi, Yiweh Shieh, Lisa Madlensky, Jeffrey Tice, Elad Ziv, Martin Eklund, Amie Blanco, Barry Tong, Deborah Goodman, Lamees Nassereddine, Nancy Anderson, Heather Harvey, Steele Fors, Hannah L Park, Antonia Petruse, Skye Stewart, Janet Wernisch, Larissa Risty, Ian Hurley, Barbara Koenig, Celia Kaplan, Robert Hiatt, Neil Wenger, Vivian Lee, Diane Heditsian, Susie Brain, Leah Sabacan, Barbara Parker, Alexander Borowsky, Hoda Anton-Culver, Hoda Anton-Culver, Arash Naeim, Andrea Kaster, Melinda Talley, Laura van't Veer, Andrea LaCroix, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Deepa Sheth, WISDOM Study and Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocate Partners and Laura Esserman. Personalized breast cancer screening in a population-based study: Women informed to screen depending on measures of risk (WISDOM) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-03-02.

Improving cascade genetic testing for families with inherited pancreatic cancer (PDAC) risk: The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study

TPS779

Background: 4-10% of PDAC patients harbor pathogenic germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes, including APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, and TP53. For families with such pathogenic variants, the greatest potential impact of germline testing is to identify relatives with the same variant (cascade testing), thereby providing the opportunity for early detection and interception of PDAC and other associated cancers. Numerous factors limit cascade testing in real-world practice, including family dynamics, widespread geographic distribution of relatives, access to genetic services, and misconceptions about the importance of germline testing, such that the preventive benefits of cascade testing are often not fully realized. The primary aim of this study is to analyze two alternative strategies for cascade testing in families with inherited PDAC risk. Methods: 1000 individuals with a confirmed pathogenic germline variant in any of the above genes in a 1st/2nd degree relative and a 1st/2nd degree relative with PDAC will be remotely enrolled through the study website (www.GENERATEstudy.org) and randomized between two methods of cascade testing (individuals with prior genetic testing will be ineligible): Arm 1 will undergo pre-test genetic education with a pre-recorded video and live interactive session with a genetic counselor via a web-based telemedicine platform (Doxy.me), followed by germline testing through Color Genomics; Arm 2 will undergo germline testing through Color Genomics without dedicated pre-test genetic education. Color Genomics will disclose results to study personnel and directly to participants in both arms. All participants will have the option of pursuing additional telephone-based genetic counseling through Color Genomics. The primary outcome will be uptake of cascade testing. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported genetic knowledge, cancer worry, distress, decisional preparedness, familial communication, and screening uptake, which will be measured via longitudinal surveys. Enrollment is underway nationwide as of May, 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT03762590.

Risk estimation, anxiety, and breast cancer worry in women at risk for breast cancer: A single-arm trial of personalized risk communication

OBJECTIVE

Elevated anxiety and breast cancer worry can impede mammographic screening and early breast cancer detection. Genetic advances and risk models make personalized breast cancer risk assessment and communication feasible, but it is unknown whether such communication of risk affects anxiety and disease-specific worry. We studied the effect of a personalized breast cancer screening intervention on risk perception, anxiety, and breast cancer worry.

METHODS

Women with a normal mammogram but elevated risk for breast cancer (N = 122) enrolled in the Athena Breast Health risk communication program were surveyed before and after receiving a letter conveying their breast cancer risk and a breast health genetic counselor consultation. We compared breast cancer risk estimation, anxiety, and breast cancer worry before and after risk communication and evaluated the relationship of anxiety and breast cancer worry to risk estimation accuracy.

RESULTS

Women substantially overestimated their lifetime breast cancer risk, and risk communication somewhat mitigated this overestimation (49% pre-intervention, 42% post-intervention, 13% Gail model risk estimate, P < .001). Both general anxiety and breast cancer worry declined significantly after risk communication in women with high baseline anxiety. Baseline anxiety and breast cancer worry were essentially unrelated to risk estimation accuracy, but risk communication increased alignment of worry with accuracy of risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized communication about breast cancer risk was associated with modestly improved risk estimation accuracy in women with relatively low anxiety and less anxiety and breast cancer worry in women with higher anxiety. We detected no negative consequences of informing women about elevated breast cancer risk.

Improving cascade genetic testing for families with inherited pancreatic cancer (PDAC) risk: The genetic education, risk assessment and testing (GENERATE) study

TPS4162

Background: 4-10% of PDAC patients harbor pathogenic germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes, including APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, and TP53. For families with such pathogenic variants, the greatest potential impact of germline testing is to identify relatives with the same pathogenic variant (cascade testing), thereby providing the opportunity for early detection and cancer interception of PDAC and other associated malignancies. Numerous factors limit cascade testing in real-world practice, including family dynamics, widespread geographic distribution of relatives, access to genetic services, and misconceptions about the importance of germline testing, such that the preventive benefits of cascade testing are often not fully realized. The primary aim of this study is to analyze two alternative strategies for cascade testing in families with inherited PDAC susceptibility. Methods: 1000 individuals (from approximately 200 families) with a confirmed pathogenic germline variant in any of the above genes in a 1st/2nd degree relative and a 1st/2nd degree relative with PDAC will be remotely enrolled through the study website (www.generatestudy.org) and randomized between two different methods of cascade testing (individuals with prior genetic testing will be ineligible): Arm 1 will undergo pre-test genetic education with a pre-recorded video and live interactive session with a genetic counselor via a web-based telemedicine platform (Doxy.me), followed by germline testing through Color Genomics; Arm 2 will undergo germline testing through Color Genomics without dedicated pre-test genetic education. Color Genomics will disclose results to study personnel and directly to participants in both arms. Participants in both arms will have the option of pursuing additional telephone-based genetic counseling through Color Genomics. The primary outcome will be uptake of cascade testing. Secondary outcomes will include participant self-reported genetic knowledge, cancer worry, distress, decisional preparedness, familial communication, and screening uptake, which will be measured via longitudinal surveys. Enrollment will begin February, 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT03762590.

Abstract OT2-08-01: Personalized breast cancer screening in a population based study: Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk (WISDOM)

Background: WISDOM is a 100,000 healthy women preference-tolerant, pragmatic study comparing annual to personalized risk-based breast screening. The novelty of WISDOM personalized screening is the integration of previously validated genetic and clinical risk factors (age, family history, breast biopsy results, ethnicity, mammographic density) into a single risk assessment model that directs the starting age, timing, and frequency of screening. The goal of WISDOM is to determine if personalized screening, compared to annual screening, is as safe, less morbid, enables prevention, and is preferred by women. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02620852.

Methods: Women aged 40-74 years with no history of breast cancer or DCIS, and no previous double mastectomy can join the study online at wisdomstudy.org. Participants can elect randomization or self-select a study arm, and provide electronic consent and Release for Medical Information using DocuSign. For all participants, 5-year risk of developing breast cancer is calculated according to the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model. Participants in the personalized arm undergo panel-based mutation testing, and their 5-year risk is calculated using the BCSC score combined with a Polygenic Risk Score (BCSC-PRS) that includes 75 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, increase to 229) known to increase breast cancer risk. SNPs and mutations (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, STK11, CDH1, ATM, PALB2, and CHEK2) are assessed by saliva-based testing through Color Genomics. 5-year risk level thresholds are used to stratify for low-, moderate- and high risk. Risk stratification determines age to start, stop, and frequency of screening.

Enrollment: As of July 2018, the WISDOM study is open to all eligible women in California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. To date, 23,329 eligible women have registered and 14,393 women have consented to participate in the trial. We analyzed 3,255 participants who have completed risk assessment in the personalized arm. The median age was 56 years. 82% were Caucasian, 1% African-American, and 6% Asian. 9% self-reported as Hispanic. We are partnering with health insurers and self-insured companies using coverage with evidence progression. To strengthen generalizability, we are expanding to other states. WISDOM enrollment will continue past 2019.

Feasibility: To evaluate the addition of PRS, we used paired statistical tests (McNemar) to compare the distributions of BCSC, and BCSC-PRS risk estimates around low-risk (&lt;1.3%), and very-high risk (&gt;6%) thresholds, the latter corresponding to 5-year risk of a BRCA mutation carrier. The median 5-year risk was 1.5% (IQR 1.0-2.1%) using the BCSC model, and 1.4% (IQR 0.8-2.5%) using the BCSC-PRS model. The BCSC-PRS model classified more women into the low (&lt;1%) and very high (≥6%) risk categories compared to the BCSC model (p &lt; 0.001).

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that incorporating genetic variants into a validated clinical model is feasible and impacts risk classification compared to a model without genetic risk factors. Results at 5 years will reveal if this classification improves healthcare value by reducing screen volumes and costs without jeopardizing outcomes.

Citation Format: Acerbi I, Shieh Y, Madlensky L, Tice J, Ziv E, Eklund M, Blanco A, DeRosa D, Tong B, Goodman D, Nassereddine L, Anderson N, Harvey H, Layton T, Park HL, Petruse A, Stewart S, Wernisch J, Risty L, Koenig B, Sarrafan S, Firouzian R, Kaplan C, Hiatt R, Parker BA, Wenger N, Lee V, Heditsian D, Brain S, Stover Fiscalini A, Borowsky AD, Anton-Culver H, Naeim A, Kaster A, Talley M, van 't Veer LJ, LaCroix A, Wisdom Study and Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocate Partners, Esserman LJ. Personalized breast cancer screening in a population based study: Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk (WISDOM) [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 OT2-08-01.

Abstract PD2-14: Participation in a personalized breast cancer screening trial does not increase anxiety at baseline

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to examine whether participation in a personalized screening trial is associated with anxiety or breast cancer worry. The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute recently funded WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk), which is a randomized trial that tests the safety and efficacy of basing starting age, stopping age, frequency and modality of breast cancer screening on individual risk (Clinical Trials Identifier NCT02620852).

Methods: In WISDOM, participants can be randomized to annual screening or personalized screening arm, or self-select an arm an observational cohort. This interim analysis examined the first 1817 participants to determine if the personalized risk arm is acceptable and to explore whether baseline anxiety was associated with study arm. For acceptability our target was to have &gt;60% of participants agree to randomization. Participants completed questions about their Risk Perception, the PROMIS Anxiety short form 8a (total scores 8-40 with higher scores indicating more anxiety), and Breast Cancer Risk Worry (BCRW) survey (total scores 5-20) with higher scores indicating more worry) at baseline and before they were given information on their personal risk or study assignment. For the purposes of these analyses, we defined high anxiety to be the percentage of participants scoring =&gt;22 on the PROMIS and &gt;8 on the BCRW.

Results: The participants were recruited from three sites (UCSD, UCSF, Sanford Health). Of the 1817 initial participants, 1643 completed the baseline questionnaire. Participants has a mean age of 57 years (SD 9). 15.8% felt their chances of developing breast cancer was high, 19.5% felt their chance of developing breast cancer was greater than the average women, and 56.6% felt their lifetime risk of developing breast cancer was &gt;25. Risk perception was not significantly different between women who opted to be randomized versus the observational arm.

The majority of participants were willing to be randomly assigned to an arm (1071/1643, 65.1%). Of those who joined the observational cohort, the majority selected personalized risk arm (474/572, 82.9%). Overall, PROMIS anxiety scores were low at baseline (14.0 MEAN (SD 4.6)) as were the Breast Cancer Risk Worry scores (5.7 MEAN (SD 1.05)). Less than 8% of participants had PROMIS scores &gt;22 and that did not vary across the randomized or observational groups (P=0.2)). About 2% of participants had a BCRW scores &gt;8. Women who worried with breast cancer were more likely to select to be in the observational (3.5%) than randomized (1.7%) arm of the study (P=0.02).

Conclusions: For the women approached to participate in Wisdom, personalized screening was acceptable alternative to annual mammography. Participants in general overestimated their lifetime risk of breast cancer, had very low anxiety and low breast cancer worry. Those who were worried about breast cancer opted more often for the observational arm of the study to allow them to choose between the personalized versus annual arm. Future analyses will follow participants prospectively to determine adherence to assigned or selected arm, and whether anxiety changes after receipt of their personalized risk information.

Citation Format: Naeim A, Sepucha K, Wenger N, Eklund M, Annette S, Madlensky L, van't Veer L, Parker B, Yau C, Cink T, Anton-Culver H, Borowsky A, Petruse A, Sarrafan S, Stover-Fiscalini A, LaCroix A, Adduci K, Wisdom Advocate Partners, Laura E. Participation in a personalized breast cancer screening trial does not increase anxiety at baseline [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-14.

Abstract OT3-03-01: Preference-Tolerant randomized trial of risk-based vs. annual breast cancer screening: WISDOM study in progress

Purpose: Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk (WISDOM) trial is a pragmatic study comparing two real world approaches to clinical care for breast screening: annual screening versus personalized screening. The novelty of the personalized arm of the study is that we are combining known risk factors (age, family history, history of breast disease, ethnicity, BIRADS breast density, and genetics) into a single risk assessment model. All components of the model have been tested and established, but have never been used jointly.

The goal of the WISDOM study is to examine the effectiveness of personalized breast cancer screening and to bring objective recommendations to the current mammography screening debate.

Methods: The WISDOM trial will enroll 100,000 women with a preference-tolerant design that will determine if risk-based screening vs. annual screening, is as safe, less morbid, enables prevention, and is preferred by women. Women 40 - 74 years of age with no history of breast cancer or DCIS, and no previous double mastectomy can join the study from the WISDOM Study website (wisdomstudy.org). All participants sign up, elect randomization or self-select the study arm, provide electronic consent using DocuSign (eConsent), and sign a Medical Release Form. For all participants, 5-year risk of developing breast cancer is calculated according to the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model. For participants in the personalized arm, the overall 5-year risk BCSC score is combined with a Polygenic Risk Score, based on a genetic test including mutations in 9 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, STK11, CDH1, ATM, PALB2, and CHEK2) and a panel of 75 common single nucleotide polymorphisms known to increase breast cancer risk. Risk stratification will determine frequency of screening. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02620852.

Results: As of June 12th 2017, the WISDOM study is live at all UC medical centers and recruitment is open to all eligible women in California. Up to date 4,769 eligible women registered at all sites. 2,823 women have consented in the trial. 64% were randomized and 36% chose their screening arm. A pilot was conducted to test the logistics of online participation and examine the acceptance of the study design and approach. We are partnering with health insurance companies and self-insured companies to reach our recruitment goal.

Conclusions: Enrollment will be completed by end of 2018.

Acknowledgment: support by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), PCS-1402-10749 to L.J.E.

(*) Authors equally contributed to this work.

Citation Format: Acerbi I, Abihider K, Ling J, Layton T, DeRosa D, Madlensky L, Tice J, Shieh Y, Ziv E, Sarrafan S, Firouzian R, Tong B, Blanco A, Lee V, Heditsian D, Brain S, Kaplan C, Borowsky A, Anton-Culver H, Naeim A, Cink T, Stover Fiscalini A, Parker B, van 't Veer L, Wisdom Study and Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocate Partners, LaCroix A, Esserman L. Preference-Tolerant randomized trial of risk-based vs. annual breast cancer screening: WISDOM study in progress [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-03-01.

Abstract P3-09-02: Risk stratification using clinical risk factors and genetic variants in a personalized screening trial

Introduction: Tailoring breast cancer screening according to individual risk may represent an improvement over the current practice of age-based screening. WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk) is an ongoing randomized trial comparing the safety, efficacy, cost, and patient acceptability of personalized versus annual screening. Women in the personalized arm receive screening recommendations based on sequencing of 9 genes associated with hereditary breast cancer and a 5-year risk estimate from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model modified by a polygenic risk score (PRS) comprised of 75 single nucleotide polymorphisms. WISDOM represents the first-ever use of a PRS to prospectively modify risk estimates and allows comparison of risk model performance in a population-based setting. Thus, we evaluated the risk estimates generated by: 1) the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) based on the Gail model, 2) the BCSC model, and 3) the BCSC model modified by the PRS (BCSC-PRS).

Methods: We analyzed participants in the personalized screening arm of the WISDOM Study (NCT02620852). The trial opened in October 2016 and is enrolling participants aged 40-74 years. Participants' self-reported demographic and risk factor information were collected through an online portal. Genotyping of participants in the personalized arm was done using a custom panel from Color Genomics. 5-year risk estimates were generated using the BCRAT (2011 version), BCSC, and BCSC-PRS models. In the latter, the PRS was used as a Bayesian likelihood ratio to modify the BCSC 5-year risk estimate. We compared the distributions of BCRAT, BCSC, and BCSC-PRS risk estimates around a low-risk (&lt;1%) and moderately high-risk (≥3%) threshold using a paired statistical test (McNemar).

Results: To date, WISDOM has enrolled 2,065 participants, of whom 1,157 are in the personalized arm and 830 have completed risk assessment. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, IQR 49-64). 83% were Caucasian, 2% African-American, and 7% Asian. 8% self-reported as Hispanic. The median 5-year risk was 1.7% (IQR 1.1-2.3%) using the BCRAT, 1.6% (IQR 1.1-2.3%) using the BCSC model, and 1.5% (IQR 0.9-2.7%) using the BCSC-PRS model. The BCSC-PRS model classified more women into the low (&lt;1%) and moderately high (≥3%) risk categories compared with the BCRAT (p &lt; 0.001) and BCSC model (p &lt; 0.001), Table.

5-year risk classification according to the BCRAT, BCSC and BCSC-PRS models &lt;1%1-3%≥3% n (%)n (%)n (%)Gail161 (19)556 (67)113 (14)BCSC159 (19)568 (68)103 (12)BCSC-PRS275 (33)379 (46)176 (21)

Discussion: Adding a PRS to the BCSC model categorized significantly more women below the low-risk threshold and above the moderately high-risk threshold compared with the BCSC model and BCRAT. Furthermore, the BCSC and BCRAT generated similar distributions of risk estimates. Follow-up with incident breast cancer data is needed to determine whether the reclassification provided by the PRS improves risk stratification and clinical outcomes. However, our preliminary findings suggest that incorporating genetic variants into a validated clinical model is feasible and could enhance risk prediction.

Citation Format: Shieh Y, Ziv E, Eklund M, Sabacan L, Firouzian R, Madlensky L, Anton-Culver H, Borowsky A, LaCroix A, Naeim A, Parker B, van't Veer L, Esserman L, Tice J, WISDOM Study and Athena Network Investigators WS. Risk stratification using clinical risk factors and genetic variants in a personalized screening trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-09-02.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Duodenal-Jejunal Flexure GI Stromal Tumor Frequently Heralds Somatic NF1 and Notch Pathway Mutations

Purpose

GI stromal tumors (GISTs) are commonly associated with somatic mutations in KIT and PDGFRA. However, a subset arises from mutations in NF1, most commonly associated with neurofibromatosis type 1. We define the anatomic distribution of NF1 alterations in GIST.

Methods

We describe the demographic/clinicopathologic features of 177 patients from two institutions whose GISTs underwent next-generation sequencing of ≥315 cancer-related genes.

Results

We initially identified six (9.7%) of 62 GISTs with NF1 genomic alterations from the first cohort. Of these six patients, five (83.3%) had unifocal tumors at the duodenal-jejunal flexure (DJF). Two additional patients with DJF GISTs had non-NF1 (KIT and BRAF) genomic alterations. After excluding one DJF GIST with an NF1 single nucleotide polymorphism, four (57.1%) of seven sequenced DJF tumors demonstrated deleterious NF1 alterations, whereas only one (1.8%) of 55 sequenced non-DJF GISTs had a deleterious NF1 somatic mutation (P < .001). One patient with DJF GIST had a germline NF1 variant that was associated with incomplete penetrance of clinical neurofibromatosis type 1 features along with a somatic NF1 mutation. Of the five DJF GISTs with any NF1 alteration, three (60%) had KIT mutations, and three (60%) had Notch pathway mutations (NOTCH2, MAML2, CDC73). We validated these findings in a second cohort of 115 GISTs, where two (40%) of five unifocal NF1-mutated GISTs arose at the DJF, and one of these also had a Notch pathway mutation (EP300).

Conclusion

Broad genomic profiling of adult GISTs has revealed that NF1 alterations are enriched in DJF GISTs. These tumors also may harbor concurrent activating KIT and/or inactivating Notch pathway mutations. In some cases, germline NF1 genetic testing may be appropriate for patients with DJF GISTs.

Addressing Hereditary Cancer Risk at the End of Life

Oncology guidelines clearly outline evidence-based recommendations for patients with newly diagnosed cancer to help oncologists determine which patients are appropriate for a genetic assessment. Ideally, patients with newly diagnosed cancer, who have personal or family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer predisposition, are referred for genetics work up in the nonurgent setting. However, in some cases, a genetics work up is delayed until the end of life. This is a time of heightened stress and additional obstacles, including discordance between family members regarding the obtainment of genetic information, paying for testing, selecting a surrogate to receive and disperse information in the case of a patient's death, and the use of DNA banking for future evaluation. To meaningfully participate and support patients, family members, and our colleagues facing requests at the end of life for genetic testing, we provide a practical approach and highlight resources to effectively engage in this rising challenge.

Abstract P3-08-05: The yield of germline genetic testing in breast cancer patients diagnosed prior to age 50

Young breast cancer (BC) patients are more likely to carry a mutation in a cancer predisposition gene than women diagnosed later in life. Historically young BC patients were eligible for BRCA1/2 genetic testing, but now with the advent of larger panels, more extensive germline genetic testing is available. Little is known about the yield of panel testing in young BC patients. The goal of this study is to report on the testing outcomes of referrals to a single institution cancer genetics program for women who had a diagnosis of BC at or prior to age 50.

METHODS: Cases were identified from the cancer registry of a single institution. Women with invasive breast cancer or DCIS were included if their diagnosis was at or before age 50. Charts were reviewed to abstract data on age of diagnosis, type of testing offered, and results of genetic testing, as well as insurance status and family history of cancer.

RESULTS: A total of 386 young BC patients were referred for genetic counseling in 2011-2015. Of those, 287 (74%) attended a genetic counseling appointment. Many of the women not attending had previously had genetic testing with an outside provider; their test results were included in the table below. Of the 287 attending a genetics consultation, most were offered genetic testing (87.1%); most of those not offered testing had either already been tested but without genetic counseling, or did not meet current NCCN or their insurer's criteria for testing. Eighteen women were offered a panel but elected to have only BRCA testing due to concerns about variants of unknown significance (VUS). Of those tested, 15.4% had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutation identified. Of women who had only BRCA testing, 11.7% were positive and 4.4% had a VUS. Of those who had panel testing, 16.9% were positive and 19.3% had a VUS.

Percentage of women with positive tests by age at diagnosisAge at Dx30 or less31-3536-4041-4546-50Total (n=18)(n=39)(n=78)(n=109)(n=108)(n=352)BRCA1/227.8%18.0%16.7%6.4%6.5%11.1%Other genes11.1%5.1%3.8%4.6%2.8%4.3%Total yield38.9%23.1%20.5%11.0%9.3%15.4%

Other genes with positive panel results included 4 x TP53 mutations, 4 x CHEK2, 2 x PALB2 and 1x each of RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, NF1, and PTEN. The three patients who tested positive for a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome (STK11, NF1, and PTEN positive) had clinical features of their respective syndromes. The STK11 patient was previously known to have Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, while the NF1 and PTEN patients had subtler features of Neurofibromatosis type 1 and PTEN-Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (Cowden Syndrome) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The yield of germline genetic testing in BC patients increases with younger age of diagnosis. Panel testing increases the yield of testing above that of BRCA1/2 alone, and enabled the formal diagnosis of a few individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes who did not have classic features of their syndromes. The VUS rate for panel testing remains significant, and some women elect to have BRCA1/2 testing only due to personal preference because of VUS rates. These data describing the yield of testing in BC patients diagnosed at a young age may be useful for genetic counseling of this patient population.

Citation Format: Madlensky L, De Rosa D, Forbes K. The yield of germline genetic testing in breast cancer patients diagnosed prior to age 50 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-05.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling

As healthcare reimbursement is increasingly tied to value-of-service, it is critical for the genetic counselor (GC) profession to demonstrate the value added by GCs through outcomes research. We conducted a rapid systematic literature review to identify outcomes of genetic counseling. Web of Science (including PubMed) and CINAHL databases were systematically searched to identify articles meeting the following criteria: 1) measures were assessed before and after genetic counseling (pre-post design) or comparisons were made between a GC group vs. a non-GC group (comparative cohort design); 2) genetic counseling outcomes could be assessed independently of genetic testing outcomes, and 3) genetic counseling was conducted by masters-level genetic counselors, or non-physician providers. Twenty-three papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were in the cancer genetic setting and the most commonly measured outcomes included knowledge, anxiety or distress, satisfaction, perceived risk, genetic testing (intentions or receipt), health behaviors, and decisional conflict. Results suggest that genetic counseling can lead to increased knowledge, perceived personal control, positive health behaviors, and improved risk perception accuracy as well as decreases in anxiety, cancer-related worry, and decisional conflict. However, further studies are needed to evaluate a wider array of outcomes in more diverse genetic counseling settings.

Breast Cancer Screening in the Precision Medicine Era: Risk-Based Screening in a Population-Based Trial

Ongoing controversy over the optimal approach to breast cancer screening has led to discordant professional society recommendations, particularly in women age 40 to 49 years. One potential solution is risk-based screening, where decisions around the starting age, stopping age, frequency, and modality of screening are based on individual risk to maximize the early detection of aggressive cancers and minimize the harms of screening through optimal resource utilization. We present a novel approach to risk-based screening that integrates clinical risk factors, breast density, a polygenic risk score representing the cumulative effects of genetic variants, and sequencing for moderate- and high-penetrance germline mutations. We demonstrate how thresholds of absolute risk estimates generated by our prediction tools can be used to stratify women into different screening strategies (biennial mammography, annual mammography, annual mammography with adjunctive magnetic resonance imaging, defer screening at this time) while informing the starting age of screening for women age 40 to 49 years. Our risk thresholds and corresponding screening strategies are based on current evidence but need to be tested in clinical trials. The Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk (WISDOM) Study, a pragmatic, preference-tolerant randomized controlled trial of annual vs personalized screening, will study our proposed approach. WISDOM will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of risk-based screening beginning in the fall of 2016. The adaptive design of this trial allows continued refinement of our risk thresholds as the trial progresses, and we discuss areas where we anticipate emerging evidence will impact our approach.

An Antiestrogenic Activity Score for tamoxifen and its metabolites is associated with breast cancer outcome

PURPOSE

Endoxifen concentrations have been associated with breast cancer recurrence in tamoxifen-treated patients. However, tamoxifen itself and other metabolites also show antiestrogenic anti-tumor activity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive Antiestrogenic Activity Score (AAS), which accounts for concentration and antiestrogenic activity of tamoxifen and three metabolites. An association between the AAS and recurrence-free survival was investigated and compared to a previously published threshold for endoxifen concentrations of 5.97 ng/mL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The antiestrogenic activities of tamoxifen, (Z)-endoxifen, (Z)-4-hydroxytamoxifen, and N-desmethyltamoxifen were determined in a cell proliferation assay. The AAS was determined by calculating the sum of each metabolite concentration multiplied by an IC₅₀ ratio, relative to tamoxifen. The AAS was calculated for 1370 patients with estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-positive breast cancer. An association between AAS and recurrence was investigated using Cox regression and compared with the 5.97 ng/mL endoxifen threshold using concordance indices.

RESULTS

An AAS threshold of 1798 was associated with recurrence-free survival, hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.96), bias corrected after bootstrap HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.48-0.99). The concordance indices for AAS and endoxifen did not significantly differ; however, using the AAS threshold instead of endoxifen led to different dose recommendations for 5.2% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoxifen concentrations can serve as a proxy for the antiestrogenic effect of tamoxifen and metabolites. However, for the aggregate effect of tamoxifen and three metabolites, defined by an integrative algorithm, a trend towards improving treatment is seen and moreover, is significantly associated with breast cancer recurrence.

FGFR1 and NTRK3 actionable alterations in "Wild-Type" gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Background

About 10–15% of adult, and most pediatric, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) lack mutations in KIT, PDGFRA, SDHx, or RAS pathway components (KRAS, BRAF, NF1). The identification of additional mutated genes in this rare subset of tumors can have important clinical benefit to identify altered biological pathways and select targeted therapies.

Methods

We performed comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) for coding regions in more than 300 cancer-related genes of 186 GISTs to assess for their somatic alterations.

Results

We identified 24 GIST lacking alterations in the canonical KIT/PDGFRA/RAS pathways, including 12 without SDHx alterations. These 24 patients were mostly adults (96%). The tumors had a 46% rate of nodal metastases. These 24 GIST were more commonly mutated at 7 genes: ARID1B, ATR, FGFR1, LTK, SUFU, PARK2 and ZNF217. Two tumors harbored FGFR1 gene fusions (FGFR1–HOOK3, FGFR1–TACC1) and one harbored an ETV6–NTRK3 fusion that responded to TRK inhibition. In an independent sample set, we identified 5 GIST cases lacking alterations in the KIT/PDGFRA/SDHx/RAS pathways, including two additional cases with FGFR1–TACC1 and ETV6–NTRK3 fusions.

Conclusions

Using patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and CGP, we show that GIST lacking alterations in canonical genes occur in younger patients, frequently metastasize to lymph nodes, and most contain deleterious genomic alterations, including gene fusions involving FGFR1 and NTRK3. If confirmed in larger series, routine testing for these translocations may be indicated for this subset of GIST. Moreover, these findings can be used to guide personalized treatments for patients with GIST.

Trial registration NCT 02576431. Registered October 12, 2015

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12967-016-1075-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract P6-02-08: Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era

We are entering the era of precision medicine in which cancer screening, prevention and treatment will be tailored to each individual. The progress made in this field is due, in part, to advances in our understanding of cancer risk and tumor biology. The challenge before us is to harness this knowledge and apply it in the clinical setting. Breast cancer screening provides an excellent opportunity to test the value of precision medicine in the real world. In this report we describe the process of designing a model of personalized breast cancer screening.

Methods

Risk factors were selected that have the greatest impact, have been validated and can be measured across a population. A risk model was selected that is highly calibrated, has been validated in a large screening cohort and is easy to apply in a large population of women. An expert committee was convened that set risk thresholds for stratifying women into groups that will be recommended to undergo biennial, annual or every six month screening. Risk thresholds and screening schedules are in accordance with the United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations.

Results

Risk factors: Age, race/ethnicity, personal history of breast biopsies and benign breast disease, family history, breast density and breast cancer-associated genetic mutations and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were chosen as the risk factors that will be used to determine breast cancer risk. Risk model: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model will be used to calculate a woman's 5-year risk and will be modified by a polygenic risk score based on 81 SNPs. Risk thresholds: Women will be recommended to undergo biennial screening mammography when they reach the age of 50 or have the risk of an average 50 year-old woman (1.3% 5-year risk). Women will be advised to undergo annual screening if they are at increased risk of developing an interval cancer (women in their forties with extremely dense breasts and women at increased risk of developing estrogen receptor negative breast cancer based on their SNPs). Women will be recommended to undergo annual mammography and annual MRI if they are found to be gene mutation positive, have the risk of a BRCA1 mutation carrier (6% 5-year risk) or have a history of mantle radiation.

Discussion

Selecting the appropriate risk factors and risk model and determining risk thresholds are key components of designing a personalized breast cancer screening model. Personalized screening may be the way forward, but this can only be determined within the setting of a randomized controlled trial. We will conduct such a trial to determine if personalized screening is as safe as, less morbid than, more preferred by women than and enables prevention when compared to annual screening. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) study will compare risk-based screening to annual screening within the Athena Breast Health Network with support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Our intent is that this trial will provide us with the data that we need to determine the safest and most effective way to screen women for breast cancer in the era of precision medicine.

Citation Format: Thompson CK, Fiscalini AS, Donnellan P, Kaplan CP, Madlensky L, Eklund M, Ziv E, van't Veer LJ, Tice JA, Esserman LJ. Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-02-08.

Participation of low-income women in genetic cancer risk assessment and BRCA 1/2 testing: the experience of a safety-net institution

Some communities and populations lack access to genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) and testing. This is particularly evident in safety-net institutions, which serve a large segment of low-income, uninsured individuals. We describe the experience of a safety-net clinic with limited resources in providing GCRA and BRCA1/2 testing. We compared the proportion and characteristics of high-risk women who were offered and underwent GCRA and genetic testing. We also provide a description of the mutation profile for affected women. All 125 patients who were offered GCRA accepted to undergo GCRA. Of these, 72 % had a breast cancer diagnosis, 70 % were Hispanic, 52.8 % were non-English speakers, and 66 % did not have health insurance. Eighty four (67 %) were offered genetic testing and 81 (96 %) agreed. Hispanic women, those with no medical insurance, and those with a family history of breast cancer were significantly more likely to undergo testing (p > 0.01). Twelve of 81 (15 %) patients were found to have deleterious mutations, seven BRCA1, and five BRCA2. Our experience shows that it is possible to offer GCRA and genetic testing even in the setting of limited resources for these services. This is important given that a large majority of the low-income women in our study agreed to undergo counseling and testing. Our experience could serve as a model for similar low-resource safety-net health settings.

Abstract B17: Family history of breast and ovarian cancer prevalence and its association with triple-negative subtype in Hispanic women

Background: A family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative is an established risk factor for breast cancer; however, little is known about the profile of breast and ovarian family history in Hispanic/Latina women. Importance of this relates to recent reports showing a high prevalence of BRCA mutations in Hispanic/Latina women and a pattern of multiple recurrent mutations. In addition, less is known about the association of family history and tumor subtype in this growing ethnic group in the U.S.

Methods: Study participants included breast cancer patients of Mexican descent enrolled in the Ella Binational Breast Cancer Study. We first assessed the self-reported breast and ovarian family history profile in 1,150 women. Second, we compared differences in family history of breast and ovarian cancer prevalence between triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC in 914 patients with available tumor subtype data. Logistic regression was conducted to compare odds of TNBC to non-TNBC according to family history of breast and ovarian cancer.

Results: Prevalence of breast cancer family history in a first- and first- or second-degree relative was 13.1% and 24.1%, respectively. A history of breast or ovarian cancer in first-degree relatives was reported in 14.9% of the women. After adjustment for age and country of residence, women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer were more likely to be diagnosed with TNBC compared to non-TNBC (OR=1.98; 95% CI, 1.26-3.11). The odds of TNBC compared to non-TNBC was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.26–2.97) for women with first-degree relatives with breast or ovarian cancer. There was a suggestion of stronger associations between family history and TNBC among women diagnosed at age &lt;50 compared to those &gt;50 years for breast cancer history in first-degree (P-interaction=0.14) and first- or second-degree relatives (P-interaction=0.07).

Conclusion: Findings suggest that familial cancers are associated with triple negative subtype, possibly related to the prevalence of BRCA mutations in Hispanic women, which are strongly associated with TNBC. Improvement in collection of family history through new tools and instruments targeting English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanic women should be a priority for future research. Identification of a strong family history can ultimately affect treatment plans, screening practices, and prevention options both for patients and their relatives.

Citation Format: Maria Elena Martinez, Kristin Anderson, Patricia Thompson, Betsy C. Wertheim, Lorena Martin, Ian Komenaka, Melissa Bondy, Adrian Daneri-Navarro, Maria Mercedes Meza-Montenegro, Luis Enrique Gutierrez-Millan, Abenaa Brewster, Lisa Madlensky, Malaika Tobias, Loki Natarajan. Family history of breast and ovarian cancer prevalence and its association with triple-negative subtype in Hispanic women. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Seventh AACR Conference on The Science of Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; Nov 9-12, 2014; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24(10 Suppl):Abstract nr B17.

Long-term psychosocial and behavioral adjustment in individuals receiving genetic test results in Lynch syndrome

A cross-sectional study of 155 participants who underwent genetic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) examined long-term psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. Participants completed standardized measures of perceived risk, psychosocial functioning, knowledge, and a questionnaire of screening activities. Participants were on average 47.3 years and had undergone testing a mean of 5.5 years prior. Eighty four (54%) tested positive for a LS mutation and 71 (46%) negative. For unaffected carriers, perceived lifetime risk of colorectal cancer was 68%, and surprisingly, 40% among those testing negative. Most individuals demonstrated normative levels of psychosocial functioning. However, 25% of those testing negative had moderate depressive symptoms, as measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies for Depression Scale, and 31% elevated state anxiety on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Being female and a stronger escape - avoidant coping style were predictive of depressive symptoms. For state anxiety, similar patterns were observed. Quality of life and social support were significantly associated with lower anxiety. Carriers maintained higher knowledge compared to those testing negative, and were more engaged in screening. In summary, most individuals adapt to genetic test results over the long term and continue to engage in screening. A subgroup, including some non-carriers, may require added psychosocial support.

Abstract P1-11-04: Implementation of cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in underserved patients

PURPOSE:

There is great disparity in genetic testing for breast cancer. Hispanic/Latina women with breast cancer are more likely to have adverse clinical features and have a high prevalence of BRCA mutations. We propose that Academic-Community clinic partnerships offer great potential to provide access to genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for underserved communities, including Hispanic/Latina women. The study also evaluated the willingness of these patients to participate in biospecimen collection.

METHODS:

This study assessed the implementation of a limited GRCA and testing service at a safety net institution from July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013. In the 10 years prior, only two breast cancer patients had undergone genetic testing and both were insured.

The inability to perform GCRA was recognized as a critical area of need. Therefore, a breast surgical oncologist received training with City of Hope National Medical Center. The goal is to provide clinicians the appropriate skills to provide GCRA services in areas where these are not available.

Three generation pedigrees and sociodemographic information were collected including health literacy, education, self-reported income, employment status, and insurance status. We conducted a comparison of the patient characteristics along the continuum of GCRA, genetic testing, and mutation carriers, and for the latter group, we describe the BRCA mutation profile.

RESULTS:

125 patients were offered GCRA and all accepted, of which 70% of this patient population was Hispanic and 66% did not have health insurance. Of the 125 patients, 84 (67%) were recommended to undergo genetic testing and 81 (96%) agreed. Of the 81 patients who underwent genetic testing, 68 were also asked to participate in the City of Hope Cancer Screening and Prevention registry and all but one (94%) agreed.

Significant differences between patients who had genetic testing and those who did not were shown for race/ethnicity, insurance, and family history. A higher percentage of Hispanic patients and patients with no insurance underwent testing. Additional trends in differences between patients who were tested vs. those who were not were observed for education and health literacy but these were not statistically significant. Few differences were observed between women who had genetic testing and mutation carriers; however, the number of carriers was too small to merit statistical testing. Twelve of 81 (15%) patients were found to have deleterious mutations, seven BRCA 1 and five BRCA 2. Of the 12 mutation carriers, one patient had ovarian cancer and therefore had already undergone bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and two others underwent RRSO. Six are either considering RRSO or getting financial assistance for the operation. The last three are still undergoing breast cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION:

Results of our experience at a safety net hospital with a largely minority and uninsured population show that limited GCRA and testing can be successfully implemented. The great majority of patients agree to undergo counseling, testing, and participate in biospecimen research registries. Current recommendations for genetic counseling are far from being met across the country and this model could be considered for similar safety net populations.

Citation Format: Ian K Komenaka, Lisa M Winton, Jesse N Nodora, Lisa Madlensky, Meredith A Heberer, Richard Schwab, Marcia E Bouton, Jeffrey N Weitzel, Maria Elena Martinez. Implementation of cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in underserved patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-11-04.

Increased risk of additional cancers among patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are considered nonhereditary or sporadic. However, single-institution studies suggest that GIST patients develop additional malignancies at increased frequencies. It was hypothesized that greater insight could be gained into possible associations between GISTs and other malignancies with a national cancer database inquiry.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with GISTs (2001-2011) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were included. Standardized prevalence ratios (SPRs) and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were used to quantify cancer risks incurred by GIST patients before and after GIST diagnoses, respectively, in comparison with the general US population.

RESULTS

There were 6112 GIST patients, and 1047 (17.1%) had additional cancers. There were significant increases in overall cancer rates: 44% (SPR, 1.44) before the GIST diagnosis and 66% (SIR, 1.66) after the GIST diagnosis. Malignancies with significantly increased occurrence both before and after diagnoses included other sarcomas (SPR, 5.24; SIR, 4.02), neuroendocrine-carcinoid tumors (SPR, 3.56; SIR, 4.79), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SPR, 1.69; SIR, 1.76), and colorectal adenocarcinoma (SPR, 1.51; SIR, 2.16). Esophageal adenocarcinoma (SPR, 12.0), bladder adenocarcinoma (SPR, 7.51), melanoma (SPR, 1.46), and prostate adenocarcinoma (SPR, 1.20) were significantly more common only before the GIST diagnosis. Ovarian carcinoma (SIR, 8.72), small intestine adenocarcinoma (SIR, 5.89), papillary thyroid cancer (SIR, 5.16), renal cell carcinoma (SIR, 4.46), hepatobiliary adenocarcinoma (SIR, 3.10), gastric adenocarcinoma (SIR, 2.70), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (SIR, 2.03), uterine adenocarcinoma (SIR, 1.96), non-small cell lung cancer (SIR, 1.74), and transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (SIR, 1.65) were significantly more common only after the GIST diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first population-based study to characterize the associations and temporal relations between GISTs and other cancers by both site and histological type. These associations may carry important clinical implications for future cancer screening and treatment strategies.

Family history of breast and ovarian cancer and triple negative subtype in hispanic/latina women

Familial breast and ovarian cancer prevalence was assessed among 1150 women of Mexican descent enrolled in a case-only, binational breast cancer study. Logistic regression was conducted to compare odds of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) to non-TNBC according to family history of breast and breast or ovarian cancer among 914 of these women. Prevalence of breast cancer family history in a first- and first- or second-degree relative was 13.1% and 24.1%, respectively; that for breast or ovarian cancer in a first-degree relative was 14.9%. After adjustment for age and country of residence, women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer were more likely to be diagnosed with TNBC than non-TNBC (OR=1.98; 95% CI, 1.26-3.11). The odds of TNBC compared to non-TNBC were 1.93 (95% CI, 1.26-2.97) for women with a first-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer. There were non-significant stronger associations between family history and TNBC among women diagnosed at age <50 compared to ≥50 years for breast cancer in a first-degree relative (P-interaction = 0.14) and a first- or second-degree relative (P-interaction = 0.07). Findings suggest that familial breast cancers are associated with triple negative subtype, possibly related to BRCA mutations in Hispanic/Latina women, which are strongly associated with TNBC. Family history is an important tool to identify Hispanic/Latina women who may be at increased risk of TNBC, and could benefit from prevention and early detection strategies.

Abstract 15: Identifying patients with inherited cancer susceptibility through tumor profiling

Purpose: To determine whether molecular tumor profiles can be used to identify patients who may be appropriate for germline genetic testing for known cancer predisposition syndromes.

Methods: Chart review of 250 consecutive cancer patients who had tumor profiling carried out through Foundation Medicine. Age of diagnosis, family cancer history, and other primary cancers were abstracted from the electronic medical records of a single institution. We considered APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CDKN2A, MEN1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NF1, NF2, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RET, TP53, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL as our gene subset of interest for this study. We considered sequence variants as putative mutations, gene amplifications and losses were not considered.

Results: The first 49 cases reviewed comprised 13 breast cancer patients, 6 colorectal, 5 melanoma, 5 head/neck, 3 sarcomas, and 17 other tumor types. Of these, 19 patients (38%) had no mutations in any cancer predisposition genes; 22 (44%) had variants in the listed subset of genes, but these were classified as “unlikely to be deleterious germline” predisposition genes based on patient clinical and family history; and 8 (16%) had mutations that we classified as “possible” germline based on clinical and family history. The “unlikely” group includes 22 patients with 35 variants: TP53 (n=15), APC (n=5), PTEN (n=5), ATM (n=3), BRCA2 (n=1), CDKN2A (n=2), CDH1 (n=1), MSH6 (n=1), NF1 (n=1), and NF2 (n=1). The “possible” group includes five patients with early-onset cancers and/or a family history of cancer including core Li-Fraumeni Syndrome cancers; two patients with BRCA2 mutations (one is previously unreported but predicted to be deleterious; one is classified in the literature as probably benign but is controversial); and one melanoma patient with a CDKN2A mutation. Germline testing for the single-site mutations identified is being initiated for these patients. Data will be presented on the full cohort of 250 patients, some of whom have already had confirmatory germline testing.

Conclusions: A substantial subset of patients undergoing tumor profiling may have underlying germline mutations. Given that germline variants may have implications for 1) the patient's risk of additional cancers, 2) their family members cancer risks, and 3) selection of therapies, clearly delineating which variants in a tumor are germline and which are somatic is of great clinical importance. In our study, 60% of patients had variants in genes associated with hereditary cancer syndromes (50% excluding those with only TP53 variants), and 16% were considered appropriate candidates for confirmatory germline testing based on clinical features and/or family history. Therefore it is important that studies be performed to determine to what extent variants found by tumor sequencing reflect underlying germline aberrations of clinical significance.

Citation Format: Lisa Madlensky, Richard Schwab, Elisa Arthur, Alice Coutinho, Barbara Parker, Razelle Kurzrock. Identifying patients with inherited cancer susceptibility through tumor profiling. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Cancer Susceptibility and Cancer Susceptibility Syndromes; Jan 29-Feb 1, 2014; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(23 Suppl):Abstract nr 15. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.CANSUSC14-15

Family history and breast cancer subtype among women of Mexican descent

41

Background: A family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative is associated with a 2-fold increase in breast cancer risk; however, breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and there may be differences in risk profiles driven by tumor subtype or by racial/ethnic group. Methods: We assessed prevalence of familial breast cancer and its association with tumor subtype among 914 women with breast cancer of Mexican descent enrolled in the Ella Study, a case-only, binational (U.S.-Mexico) breast cancer study. Logistic regression was conducted to compare odds of triple negative breast cancers to non triple-negative breast cancers according to family history. Results: The prevalence of family history of breast cancer in a first- or second-degree relative was 24.1%, with 13.1% having an affected first-degree relative. Among participants who were diagnosed at age < 50, prevalence of family history of breast cancer in a first- or second-degree relative was 27.4%. After adjustment for age and country of residence, women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers compared to non triple-negative breast cancers (OR = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.26-3.11). Similar results were seen for odds of triple-negative breast cancers compared to non-triple negative breast cancers for women with affected first- or second-degree relatives (OR=2.04; 95% CI, 1.40–2.98). The odds of triple-negative breast cancer compared to non-triple negative breast cancer was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.26–2.97) for women with first-degree relatives affected with breast or ovarian cancer. Conclusions: Findings suggest that familial cancers are most likely to be associated with triple negative subtype, supporting etiologic heterogeneity by tumor subtype in this population of Hispanic women. This association may be related to the prevalence of BRCA1 founder mutations in this population, which are strongly associated with triple-negative breast cancers. Identification of such differences in risk factors can help personalize screening and prevention approaches.