Search

Purpose The purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response. Methods The study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal. Results A total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2− patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2− patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients. Conclusions BluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.

Germline mutations of CDKN2A that affect the p16INK4a transcript have been identified in numerous melanoma pedigrees worldwide. In the UK, over 50% of pedigrees with three or more cases of melanoma have been found to carry mutations of CDKN2A. Mutations that affect p14ARF exon 1beta exclusively are very rare. This has led to the suggestion that it is p16INK4a and not p14ARF that plays the critical role in melanoma predisposition. We report the identification of a cluster of five different germline mutations at the p14ARF exon 1beta splice donor site in melanoma pedigrees. All the five splice site variants showed evidence of being causal mutations. Three of the variants were demonstrated to result in aberrant splicing of the p14ARF mRNA, confirming their role in melanoma predisposition. No other point mutations were identified in the coding region of p14ARF. The p14ARF transcript of CDKN2A is clearly important in disease predisposition in a subset of melanoma pedigrees. Curiously, the only mutations so far reported to affect p14ARF exon 1beta exclusively have been knockout mutations. Further investigation into the spectrum of mutations observed in this gene may help clarify the exact role of p14ARF in melanoma predisposition.

The initial enthusiasm generated by the discovery of the first susceptibility gene found for melanoma has slightly dampened over recent years. For the majority of melanoma families the underlying gene defect is still not known, so the search for other melanoma genes is continuing. Also, the increased risk of melanoma does not seem to be restricted to mutation carriers, but is present even in non-mutation carriers in melanoma families. The underlying defect of familial melanoma is less straightforward than previously thought; both environmental and hereditary risk modifiers intermingle in a perplexing way. This makes familial melanoma a complex disorder which deserves the close attention of both clinicians and researchers, especially as the opinion on gene testing in familial melanoma has not yet achieved consensus. On the one hand, there is a rising demand from families for genetic testing; on the other hand, there is the clinicians' concern about the value of such testing.