Search

Background: Prognostication has been used to identify patient populations that could potentially benefit from treatment de-escalation. In patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2neg) early breast cancer (eBC), treatment de-escalation classically involved omitting chemotherapy. With recently developed specialized therapies that require hands-on side-effect management, the therapeutic landscape is changing and therapy decisions are no longer based only on prognosis, but also consider potential side-effects. Therefore, identification of patient groups based on prognostication has gained importance., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, a population of 2359 node-negative HRpos/HER2neg eBC patients was selected from all patients treated at the University Breast Center of Franconia, Germany between 2002 and 2021. The prognostic value of the IHC3 score (incorporating immunohistochemical measurements of the estrogen and progesterone receptor status and Ki-67) with clinical parameters (lymph node status, tumor stage, grading) regarding invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed., Results: IHC3 positively correlated with Ki-67 expression and inversely correlated with hormone receptor expression. IHC3 categorized into quartiles identified patients with a more unfavorable prognosis: 5-year and 10-year iDFS rates for patients in the highest versus the lowest quartile were 84% versus 95% and 70% versus 88%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis of distant disease-free survival showed similar results to those of iDFS. Five-year and 10-year OS rates for patients in the highest versus the lowest quartile were, respectively, 92% versus 97% and 81% versus 92%., Conclusions: IHC3 is able to define prognostic groups in patients with node-negative, HRpos/HER2neg eBC. Node-negative patients with a high IHC3 score had the worst prognosis, which was comparable to that of node-positive patients described in recent trials. This simple and cost-effective tool could thus potentially aid in identifying patient groups for innovative therapeutic approaches., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The monarchE and NATALEE trials demonstrated the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy in adjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment. Patient selection, based on clinical characteristics, delineated those at high (monarchE) and high/intermediate recurrence risk (NATALEE). This study employed a historical patient cohort to describe the proportion and prognosis of patients eligible for adjuvant CDK4/6i trials., Methods: Between 2009 and 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled in the adjuvant PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos) BC for whom a five-year upfront therapy with letrozole was indicated. Patients were categorized into prognostic groups according to monarchE and NATALEE inclusion criteria, and their invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: Among 2891 HRpos patients, 384 (13.3 %) met the primary monarchE inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 261) qualified due to having ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes. For NATALEE, 915 out of 2886 patients (31.7 %) met the eligibility criteria, with 126 patients (13.7 %) being node-negative. Patients from monarchE with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes and NATALEE with stage III BC exhibited the poorest prognosis (3-year iDFS rate 0.87). Patients ineligible for the trials demonstrated prognoses similar to the most favorable patient groups within the eligibility criteria., Conclusion: Patient populations eligible for monarchE and NATALEE trials differed. Nearly a third of the postmenopausal HRpos population, previously under upfront letrozole treatment, met the NATALEE prognostic eligibility criteria. As certain eligible groups had a prognosis similar to non-eligible patients, it might be interesting to explore additional patient groups for CDK4/6i therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: P.A.F. reports grants from Biontech and Cepheid, personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Roche, Hexal, Agendia, Gilead. C.C.H. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and MSD, and travel grants from Daiichi-Sankyo. N.N. is an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. B.A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Stemline, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Eisai, Stemline, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Participated in the data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. S.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Roche. C.T. received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead and Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, and Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, SurgVision, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Amgen, Onkowissen, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Agendia, Lilly and owns stock of Theraclion SA. W.J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Celgene and Johnson&Johnson. A.S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. F.M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Immunomedics, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. M.W.S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Mylan, Roche, Gedeon Richter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, travel support from Pfizer, Carl Zeiss Meditec. C.J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche. V.M. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institut. Consultancy honoraria: Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, AstraZeneca. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. P.D. received honoraria from MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, B. Braun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. All of the remaining authors have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate RB1 expression and survival across ovarian carcinoma histotypes and how co-occurrence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alterations and RB1 loss influences survival in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC)., Experimental Design: RB1 protein expression was classified by immunohistochemistry in ovarian carcinomas of 7,436 patients from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. We examined RB1 expression and germline BRCA status in a subset of 1,134 HGSC, and related genotype to overall survival (OS), tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes, and transcriptomic subtypes. Using CRISPR-Cas9, we deleted RB1 in HGSC cells with and without BRCA1 alterations to model co-loss with treatment response. We performed whole-genome and transcriptome data analyses on 126 patients with primary HGSC to characterize tumors with concurrent BRCA deficiency and RB1 loss., Results: RB1 loss was associated with longer OS in HGSC but with poorer prognosis in endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. Patients with HGSC harboring both RB1 loss and pathogenic germline BRCA variants had superior OS compared with patients with either alteration alone, and their median OS was three times longer than those without pathogenic BRCA variants and retained RB1 expression (9.3 vs. 3.1 years). Enhanced sensitivity to cisplatin and paclitaxel was seen in BRCA1-altered cells with RB1 knockout. Combined RB1 loss and BRCA deficiency correlated with transcriptional markers of enhanced IFN response, cell-cycle deregulation, and reduced epithelial-mesenchymal transition. CD8+ lymphocytes were most prevalent in BRCA-deficient HGSC with co-loss of RB1., Conclusions: Co-occurrence of RB1 loss and BRCA deficiency was associated with exceptionally long survival in patients with HGSC, potentially due to better treatment response and immune stimulation., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in females. Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have proposed cervical cancer susceptibility variants at the HLA locus on chromosome 6p21. To corroborate these findings and investigate their functional impact in cervical tissues and cell lines, we genotyped nine variants from cervical cancer GWASs (rs17190106, rs535777, rs1056429, rs2763979, rs143954678, rs113937848, rs3117027, rs3130214, and rs9477610) in a German hospital-based series of 1122 invasive cervical cancers, 1408 dysplasias, and 1196 healthy controls. rs17190106, rs1056429 and rs143954678/rs113937848 associated with cervical malignancies overall, while rs17190106 and rs535777 associated specifically with invasive cancer (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.55-0.86, p = 0.001) or adenocarcinomas (OR = 1.63, 95%CI = 1.17-2.27, p = 0.004), respectively. We tested these and one previously genotyped GWAS variant, rs9272117, for potential eQTL effects on 36 gene transcripts at the HLA locus in 280 cervical epithelial tissues. The strongest eQTL pairs were rs9272117 and HLA-DRB6 (p = 1.9x10E-5), rs1056429 and HLA-DRB5 (p = 2.5x10E-4), and rs535777 and HLA-DRB1 (p = 2.7x10E-4). We also identified transcripts that were specifically upregulated (DDX39B, HCP5, HLA-B, LTB, NFKBIL1) or downregulated (HLA-C, HLA-DPB2) in HPV+ or HPV16+ samples. In comparison, treating cervical epithelial cells with proinflammatory cytokine γ-IFN led to a dose-dependent induction of HCP5, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DRB6, and repression of HSPA1L. Taken together, these results identify relevant genes from both the MHC class I and II regions that are inflammation-responsive in cervical epithelium and associate with HPV (HCP5, HLA-B, HLA-C) and/or with genomic cervical cancer risk variants (HLA-DRB1, HLA-DRB6). They may thus constitute important contributors to the immune escape of precancerous cells after HPV-infection., (© 2024 The Author(s). HLA: Immune Response Genetics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B (RANK) and its ligand (RANKL) have been shown to promote proliferation of the breast and breast carcinogenesis. The objective of this analysis was to investigate whether tumor-specific RANK and RANKL expression in patients with primary breast cancer is associated with high percentage mammographic density (PMD), which is a known breast cancer risk factor., Methods: Immunohistochemical staining of RANK and RANKL was performed in tissue microarrays (TMAs) from primary breast cancer samples of the Bavarian Breast Cancer Cases and Controls (BBCC) study. For RANK and RANKL expression, histochemical scores (H scores) with a cut-off value of > 0 vs 0 were established. PMD was measured in the contralateral, non-diseased breast. Linear regression models with PMD as outcome were calculated using common predictors of PMD (age at breast cancer diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) and parity) and RANK and RANKL H scores. Additionally, Spearman rank correlations (ρ) between PMD and RANK and RANKL H score were performed., Results: In the final cohort of 412 patients, breast cancer-specific RANK and RANKL expression was not associated with PMD (P = 0.68). There was no correlation between PMD and RANK H score (Spearman's ρ = 0.01, P = 0.87) or RANKL H score (Spearman's ρ = 0.04, P = 0.41). RANK expression was highest in triple-negative tumors, followed by HER2-positive, luminal B-like and luminal A-like tumors, while no subtype-specific expression of RANKL was found., Conclusion: Results do not provide evidence for an association of RANK and RANKL expression in primary breast cancer with PMD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2) are required for a PARP inhibitor therapy in patients with HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC). However, little is known about the prognostic impact of gBRCA1/2 mutations in aBC patients treated with chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the frequencies and prognosis of germline and somatic BRCA1/2 mutations in HER2- aBC patients receiving the first chemotherapy in the advanced setting. Patients receiving their first chemotherapy for HER2- aBC were retrospectively selected from the prospective PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167). Genotyping of 26 cancer predisposition genes was performed with germline DNA of 471 patients and somatic tumor DNA of 94 patients. Mutation frequencies, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) according to germline mutation status were assessed. gBRCA1/2 mutations were present in 23 patients (4.9%), and 33 patients (7.0%) had mutations in other cancer risk genes. Patients with a gBRCA1/2 mutation had a better OS compared to non-mutation carriers (HR: 0.38; 95%CI: 0.17-0.86). PFS comparison was not statistically significant. Mutations in other risk genes did not affect prognosis. Two somatic BRCA2 mutations were found in 94 patients without gBRCA1/2 mutations. Most frequently somatic mutated genes were TP53 (44.7%), CDH1 (10.6%) and PTEN (6.4%). In conclusion, aBC patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations had a more favorable prognosis under chemotherapy compared to non-mutation carriers. The mutation frequency of ~5% with gBRCA1/2 mutations together with improved outcome indicates that germline genotyping of all metastatic patients for whom a PARP inhibitor therapy is indicated should be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Physiologically, claudin 18 splice variant 2 (CLDN18.2) expression is restricted to the gastric epithelium, but its expression has been detected in solid cancers. Zolbetuximab, a chimeric IgG1 antibody targeting CLDN18.2, has demonstrated promising effects in patients suffering from CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced gastric cancer and is currently being studied further. To date, little is known about CLDN18.2 expression in other histological subtypes of tubo-ovarian carcinoma (TOC) and their matching metastases.Using a cohort of all histological TOC subtypes, we investigated the immunohistochemical (IHC) CLDN18.2 expression in both TOCs (n = 536), their matching metastatic tissue (n = 385) and in 93 metastases without primary. Tissue microarrays comprised both the tumor center and periphery. IHC positivity was defined as biomarker expression of ≥ 75% in tumor cells with moderate-to-strong membranous staining.Overall CLDN18.2 positivity was 4.1% (21/515) in the TOC centers and 3.6% (18/498) in their peripheries. In primaries of mucinous tubo-ovarian carcinoma (MTOC), CLDN18.2 positivity rates were 45% (18/40) and 36.6% (15/41), respectively. Positivity rates for the corresponding metastases were 33% (4/12, center) and 27% (3/11, periphery). The expression was relatively homogenous throughout all tumor sites. With no expression in 99.5% of nonmucinous tumors, CLDN18.2 positivity was almost exclusively seen in the mucinous subtype.In tubo-ovarian carcinoma, CLDN18.2 expression was, with rare exceptions, restricted to the mucinous subtype. Among them, 33% of metastasized MTOCs presented with CLDN18.2 positivity. Hence, CLDN18.2 might display a promising target for personalized therapy in patients with advanced MTOC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In recent years, new targeted therapies have been developed to treat patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. Some of these therapies have not just become the new therapy standard but also led to significantly longer overall survival rates. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the therapeutic standard for first-line therapy. Around 70 - 80% of patients are treated with a CDK4/6i. In recent years, a number of biomarkers associated with progression, clonal selection or evolution have been reported for CDK4/6i and their endocrine combination partners. Understanding the mechanisms behind treatment efficacy and resistance is important. A better understanding could contribute to planning the most effective therapeutic sequences and utilizing basic molecular information to overcome endocrine resistance. One study with large numbers of patients which aims to elucidate these mechanisms is the Comprehensive Analysis of sPatial, TempORal and molecular patterns of ribociclib efficacy and resistance in advanced Breast Cancer patients (CAPTOR BC) trial. This overview summarizes the latest clinical research on resistance to endocrine therapies, focusing on CDK4/6 inhibitors and discussing current study concepts., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. C. B. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. received honoraria from Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun and onkowissen.de for clinical research management and/or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and BioNtech. T. E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. has participated on advisory boards for Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis and Pfizer. A. D. H. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal and Pfizer. C. C. H. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. received speaker honoraria from Novartis. H. N. received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene and Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro and owns stock of Theraclion SA and Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex and Hexal and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. reports research grants from Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata. Honoraria from AZ, Roche. C. R. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. received travel support from Gilead and Lilly. F.-A. T. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding from Exact Sciences and Endomag Manuscript support was provided by Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen and Eli Lilly. The other authors (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ B. A. erhielt Honorare und Reisekosten von AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo und Pfizer. C. B. ist Angestellte der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun und onkowissen.de für klinisches Forschungsmanagement und/oder Aktivitäten der medizinischen Fortbildung. S. Y. B. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma und Teva. Seine Institution betreibt Forschung mit finanzieller Unterstützung von Novartis und BioNtech. T. E. erhielt Honorare von AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche und hat Vortragshonorare erhalten von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. C. C. H. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai und Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Novartis. H. N. erhielt Vortragshonorare und/oder Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten vn Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. erhielt Forschungsstipendien und/oder Honorare von Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene und Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, Reisekostenzuschüsse von Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro und besitzt Aktien von Theraclion SA und Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. erhielt Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex und Hexal und erhielt Vortragshonorare von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca und Eisai. V. M. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Beraterhonorare von Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead, institutionelle Forschungsförderung von Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata, Honorare von AZ, Roche. C. R. ist Angestellter der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Celgene, Roche, Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. erhielt Reisekostenzuschüsse von Gilead und Lilly. F.-A. T. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. M. T. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen und Roche, erhielt Vortragshonorare von Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor und AstraZeneca und erhielt Studienfinanzierung von Exact Sciences und Endomag; Unterstützung für das Manuskript kam von Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. Alle Honorare wurden an die Institution/den Arbeitergeber abgeführt: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen und Eli Lilly. Die anderen Autoren und Autorinnen (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) haben keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).)

Introduction: Adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) should include an aromatase inhibitor (AI). Especially patients with a high recurrence risk might benefit from an upfront therapy with an AI for a minimum of five years. Nevertheless, not much is known about the patient selection for this population in clinical practice. Therefore, this study analyzed the prognosis and patient characteristics of postmenopausal patients selected for a five-year upfront letrozole therapy., Patients and Methods: From 2009 to 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled into the adjuvant phase IV PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive BC patients, for whom an upfront five-year therapy with letrozole (2.5 mg/day) was indicated, were eligible. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and safety in relation to patient and tumor characteristics were assessed., Results: 3297 patients started letrozole therapy. The majority of patients (n = 1639, 57%) completed the five-year treatment. 34.5% of patients continued with endocrine therapy after the mandated five-year endocrine treatment. Five-year DFS rates were 89% (95% CI: 88-90%) and five-year OS rates were 95% (95% CI: 94-96%). In subgroup analyses, DFS rates were 83%, 84% and 78% for patients with node-positive disease, G3 tumor grading, and pT3 tumors respectively. The main adverse events (any grade) were pain and hot flushes (66.8% and 18.3% of patients)., Conclusions: The risk profile of postmenopausal BC patients selected for a five-year upfront letrozole therapy showed a moderate recurrence and death risk. However, in subgroups with unfavorable risk factors, prognosis warrants an improvement, which might be achieved with novel targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest P. G. received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. K. A. received speaker honoraria from Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer Pharma GmbH and AstraZeneca. C. C. H. received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead and MSD, and received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo. B. A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Stemline, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Eisai, Stemline, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Participated in the data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. S. K. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Roche. C. T. received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, SurgVision, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Amgen, Onkowissen, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Agendia, Lilly and owns stock of Theraclion SA. W. J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene and Johnson & Johnson. A. S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Cellgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. F. M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Eisai, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. M. W. S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Mylan, Roche, Gedeon Richter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, travel support from Pfizer, Carl Zeiss Meditec. C. J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. E. B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, Braun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. T. N. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Teva, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. P. A. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from Biontech, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from MSD, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Agendia, personal fees from Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. All of the remaining authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide and a highly heterogeneous disease. Four different subtypes are described that differ in the expression of hormone receptors as well as the growth factor receptor HER2. Treatment modalities and survival rate depend on the subtype of breast cancer. However, it is still not clear which patients benefit from immunotherapeutic approaches such as checkpoint blockade. Thus, we aimed to decipher the immune cell signature of the different breast cancer subtypes based on high-dimensional flow cytometry followed by unbiased approaches. Here, we show that the frequency of NK cells is reduced in Luminal A and B as well as triple negative breast cancer and that the phenotype of residual NK cells is changed toward regulatory CD11b - CD16 - NK cells. Further, we found higher frequencies of PD-1 + CD4 + and CD8 + T cells in triple negative breast cancer. Moreover, while Luminal A-type breast cancer was enriched for CD14 + cDC2 (named type 3 DC (DC3)), CD14 - cDC2 (named DC2) were more frequent in triple negative breast cancer. In contrast, HER2-enriched breast cancer did not show major alterations in the composition of the immune cell compartment in the tumor microenvironment. These findings suggest that patients with Luminal A- and B-type as well as triple negative breast cancer might benefit from immunotherapeutic approaches targeting NK cells., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Introduction: The receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK) pathway was associated with the pathogenesis of breast cancer. Several studies attempted to link the RANK/RANKL pathway to prognosis; however, with inconsistent outcomes. We aimed to further contribute to the knowledge about RANK/RANKL as prognostic factors in breast cancer. Within this study, protein expression of RANK and its ligand, RANKL, in the tumor tissue was analyzed in association with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a study cohort of patients with early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: 607 samples of female primary and early breast cancer patients from the Bavarian Breast Cancer Cases and Controls Study were analyzed to correlate the RANK and RANKL expression with DFS and OS. Therefore, expression was quantified using immunohistochemical staining of a tissue microarray. H-scores were determined with the cut-off value of 8.5 for RANK and 0 for RANKL expression, respectively., Results: RANK and RANKL immunohistochemistry were assessed by H-score. Both biomarkers did not correlate (ρ = -0.04). According to molecular subtypes, triple-negative tumors and HER2-positive tumors showed a higher number of RANK-positive tumors (H-score ≥ 8.5), however, no subtype-specific expression of RANKL could be detected. Higher RANKL expression tended to correlate with a better prognosis. However, RANK and RANKL expression could not be identified as statistically significant prognostic factors within the study cohort., Conclusions: Tumor-specific RANK and RANKL expressions are not applicable as prognostic factors for DFS and OS, but might be associated with subtype-specific breast cancer progression., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest P.A.F. reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from BioNTech, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Agendia, personal fees from Gilead. P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. J.E. has received honoraria from Eisai, Pfizer, and Novartis. A.H. has received honoraria for lectures or consulting/advisory boards for Abbvie, Agilent, AstraZeneca, Biocartis, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cepheid, Diaceutics, Gilead, Illumina, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Qiagen, QUIP GmbH, Roche, Sanofi, 3DHistotech and other research support from AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Cepheid, Gilead, Illumina, Janssen, Nanostring, Novartis, Owkin, Qiagen, QUIP GmbH, Roche, Sanofi. M.F.P. declares advisory board membership for Biocartis, Cepheid, Lilly USA; reports a consultant role for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Novartis, and Zymeworks; reports ownership interest in TORL Biotherapeutics; reports fee-for-service agreements from 1200 Pharma, Ambrx, TORL Biotherapeutics, TRIO, TRIO-US, and Zymeworks. The remaining authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Individual radiosensitivity is an important factor in the occurrence of undesirable consequences of radiotherapy. The potential for increased radiosensitivity has been linked to highly penetrant heterozygous mutations in DNA repair genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 . By studying the chromosomal radiosensitivity of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers compared to the general population, we study whether increased chromosomal radiation sensitivity is observed in patients with BRCA1/2 variants., Methods: Three-color-fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed on ex vivo-irradiated peripheral blood lymphocytes from 64 female patients with a heterozygous germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Aberrations in chromosomes #1, #2 and #4 were analyzed. Mean breaks per metaphase (B/M) served as the parameter for chromosomal radiosensitivity. The results were compared with chromosomal radiosensitivity in a cohort of generally healthy individuals and patients with rectal cancer or breast cancer., Results: Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations ( n = 64; B/M 0.47) overall showed a significantly higher chromosomal radiosensitivity than general healthy individuals ( n = 211; B/M 0.41) and patients with rectal cancer ( n = 379; B/M 0.44) and breast cancer ( n = 147; B/M 0.45) without proven germline mutations. Chromosomal radiosensitivity varied depending on the locus of the BRCA1/2 mutation., Conclusions: BRCA1/2 mutations result in slightly increased chromosomal sensitivity to radiation. A few individual patients have a marked increase in radiation sensitivity. Therefore, these patients are at a higher risk for adverse therapeutic consequences.

FANCM germline protein truncating variants (PTVs) are moderate-risk factors for ER-negative breast cancer. We previously described the spectrum of FANCM PTVs in 114 European breast cancer cases. In the present, larger cohort, we report the spectrum and frequency of four common and 62 rare FANCM PTVs found in 274 carriers detected among 44,803 breast cancer cases. We confirmed that p.Gln1701* was the most common PTV in Northern Europe with lower frequencies in Southern Europe. In contrast, p.Gly1906Alafs*12 was the most common PTV in Southern Europe with decreasing frequencies in Central and Northern Europe. We verified that p.Arg658* was prevalent in Central Europe and had highest frequencies in Eastern Europe. We also confirmed that the fourth most common PTV, p.Gln498Thrfs*7, might be a founder variant from Lithuania. Based on the frequency distribution of the carriers of rare PTVs, we showed that the FANCM PTVs spectra in Southwestern and Central Europe were much more heterogeneous than those from Northeastern Europe. These findings will inform the development of more efficient FANCM genetic testing strategies for breast cancer cases from specific European populations.

Background and Objectives: Mobile and remote ultrasound devices are becoming increasingly available. The benefits and possible risks of self-guided ultrasound examinations conducted by pregnant women at home have not yet been well explored. This study investigated aspects of feasibility and acceptance, as well as the success rates of such examinations., Methods: In this prospective, single-center, interventional study, forty-six women with singleton pregnancies between 17 + 0 and 29 + 6 weeks of gestation were included in two cohorts, using two different mobile ultrasound systems. The participants examined the fetal heartbeat, fetal profile and amniotic fluid. Aspects of feasibility and acceptance were evaluated using a questionnaire. Success rates in relation to image and video quality were evaluated by healthcare professionals., Results: Two thirds of the women were able to imagine performing the self-guided examination at home, but 87.0% would prefer live support by a professional. Concerns about their own safety and that of the child were expressed by 23.9% of the women. Success rates for locating the target structure were 52.2% for videos of the fetal heartbeat, 52.2% for videos of the amniotic fluid in all four quadrants and 17.9% for videos of the fetal profile., Conclusion: These results show wide acceptance of self-examination using mobile systems for fetal ultrasonography during pregnancy. Image quality was adequate for assessing the amniotic fluid and fetal heartbeat in most participants. Further studies are needed to determine whether ultrasound self-examinations can be implemented in prenatal care and how this would affect the fetomaternal outcome.

Our objective was to test whether p53 expression status is associated with survival for women diagnosed with the most common ovarian carcinoma histotypes (high-grade serous carcinoma [HGSC], endometrioid carcinoma [EC], and clear cell carcinoma [CCC]) using a large multi-institutional cohort from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis (OTTA) consortium. p53 expression was assessed on 6,678 cases represented on tissue microarrays from 25 participating OTTA study sites using a previously validated immunohistochemical (IHC) assay as a surrogate for the presence and functional effect of TP53 mutations. Three abnormal expression patterns (overexpression, complete absence, and cytoplasmic) and the normal (wild type) pattern were recorded. Survival analyses were performed by histotype. The frequency of abnormal p53 expression was 93.4% (4,630/4,957) in HGSC compared to 11.9% (116/973) in EC and 11.5% (86/748) in CCC. In HGSC, there were no differences in overall survival across the abnormal p53 expression patterns. However, in EC and CCC, abnormal p53 expression was associated with an increased risk of death for women diagnosed with EC in multivariate analysis compared to normal p53 as the reference (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-3.47, p = 0.0011) and with CCC (HR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.22, p = 0.012). Abnormal p53 was also associated with shorter overall survival in The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I/II EC and CCC. Our study provides further evidence that functional groups of TP53 mutations assessed by abnormal surrogate p53 IHC patterns are not associated with survival in HGSC. In contrast, we validate that abnormal p53 IHC is a strong independent prognostic marker for EC and demonstrate for the first time an independent prognostic association of abnormal p53 IHC with overall survival in patients with CCC., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research published by The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay is an alternative in vivo model that allows for minimally invasive research of cancer biology. Using the CAM assay, we investigated phenotypical and functional characteristics (tumor grade, mitosis rate, tumor budding, hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status, Ki-67 proliferation index) of two breast cancer cell lines, MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231, which resemble the HR+ (luminal) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subgroups, respectively. Moreover, the CAM results were directly compared with murine MCF-7- and MDA-MB-231-derived xenografts and human patient TNBC tissue. Known phenotypical and biological features of the aggressive triple-negative breast cancer cell line (MDA-MB-231) were confirmed in the CAM assay, and mouse xenografts. Furthermore, the histomorphological and immunohistochemical variables assessed in the CAM model were similar to those in human patient tumor tissue. Given the confirmation of the classical biological and growth properties of breast cancer cell lines in the CAM model, we suggest this in vivo model to be a reliable alternative test system for breast cancer research to reduce murine animal experiments.

Background: Cyclin E1 (CCNE1) is a potential predictive marker and therapeutic target in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). Smaller studies have revealed unfavorable associations for CCNE1 amplification and CCNE1 overexpression with survival, but to date no large-scale, histotype-specific validation has been performed. The hypothesis was that high-level amplification of CCNE1 and CCNE1 overexpression, as well as a combination of the two, are linked to shorter overall survival in HGSC., Methods: Within the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium, amplification status and protein level in 3029 HGSC cases and mRNA expression in 2419 samples were investigated., Results: High-level amplification (>8 copies by chromogenic in situ hybridization) was found in 8.6% of HGSC and overexpression (>60% with at least 5% demonstrating strong intensity by immunohistochemistry) was found in 22.4%. CCNE1 high-level amplification and overexpression both were linked to shorter overall survival in multivariate survival analysis adjusted for age and stage, with hazard stratification by study (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.47, p = .034, and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32, p = .015, respectively). This was also true for cases with combined high-level amplification/overexpression (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47, p = .033). CCNE1 mRNA expression was not associated with overall survival (HR, 1.00 per 1-SD increase; 95% CI, 0.94-1.06; p = .58). CCNE1 high-level amplification is mutually exclusive with the presence of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and shows an inverse association to RB1 loss., Conclusion: This study provides large-scale validation that CCNE1 high-level amplification is associated with shorter survival, supporting its utility as a prognostic biomarker in HGSC., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Low-frequency variants play an important role in breast cancer (BC) susceptibility. Gene-based methods can increase power by combining multiple variants in the same gene and help identify target genes., Methods: We evaluated the potential of gene-based aggregation in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium cohorts including 83,471 cases and 59,199 controls. Low-frequency variants were aggregated for individual genes' coding and regulatory regions. Association results in European ancestry samples were compared to single-marker association results in the same cohort. Gene-based associations were also combined in meta-analysis across individuals with European, Asian, African, and Latin American and Hispanic ancestry., Results: In European ancestry samples, 14 genes were significantly associated (q < 0.05) with BC. Of those, two genes, FMNL3 (P = 6.11 × 10 -6 ) and AC058822.1 (P = 1.47 × 10 -4 ), represent new associations. High FMNL3 expression has previously been linked to poor prognosis in several other cancers. Meta-analysis of samples with diverse ancestry discovered further associations including established candidate genes ESR1 and CBLB. Furthermore, literature review and database query found further support for a biologically plausible link with cancer for genes CBLB, FMNL3, FGFR2, LSP1, MAP3K1, and SRGAP2C., Conclusions: Using extended gene-based aggregation tests including coding and regulatory variation, we report identification of plausible target genes for previously identified single-marker associations with BC as well as the discovery of novel genes implicated in BC development. Including multi ancestral cohorts in this study enabled the identification of otherwise missed disease associations as ESR1 (P = 1.31 × 10 -5 ), demonstrating the importance of diversifying study cohorts., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Molecular-based subclassifications of breast cancer are important for identifying treatment options and stratifying the prognosis in breast cancer. This study aimed to assess the prognosis relative to disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and other subtypes, using a biomarker panel including cytokeratin 5 (CK5), cluster of differentiation 117 (CD117), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This cohort-case study included histologically confirmed breast carcinomas as cohort arm. From a total of 894 patients, 572 patients with early breast cancer, sufficient clinical data, and archived tumor tissue were included. Using the immunohistochemical markers CK5, CD117, and EGFR, two subgroups were formed: one with all three biomarkers negative (TBN) and one with at least one of those three biomarkers positive (non-TBN). There were significant differences between the two biomarker subgroups (TBN versus non-TBN) in TNBC for DFS ( p = 0.04) and OS ( p = 0.02), with higher survival rates (DFS and OS) in the non-TBN subgroup. In this study, we found the non-TBN subgroup of TNBC lesions with at least one positive biomarker of CK5, CD117, and/or EGFR, to be associated with longer DFS and OS., Competing Interests: P.A.F. reported receiving personal fees from MacroGenics during the conduct of the study; and grants from Cepheid and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. A.H. had an advisory role and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, Cepheid, Qiagen, Agilent, Diaceutics, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Jansen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Ipsen. R.E. has received honoraria from Roche, Eisai, Pfizer, BioNTech, Veracyte (PROCURE), Diaceutics, and Novartis. The institution to which A.H. and R.E. are affiliated conducts research for AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, NanoString Technologies, Biocartis, ZytoVision, Novartis, Cepheid, Mindpeak, and BioNTech. P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. All other authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

Analysis of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) is a suitable tool for detecting somatic mutations for the purpose of making decisions on treatment, monitoring treatment response, and predicting survival. High-throughput techniques for ccfDNA extraction are essential to implementing ccfDNA testing in the clinical setting. We set out to compare two automated techniques with regard to hands-on time, ccfDNA output and integrity, and circulating mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). CcfDNA was isolated using the EZ1&2 ccfDNA field test kit (EZ2 kit, QIAGEN) and the Maxwell RSC ccfDNA plasma kit (Maxwell kit, Promega). DNA was extracted from plasma of 30 breast cancer patients enrolled in the iMODE-B (#325&#95;19B; 12.10.2020) study. Real-time PCR, fluorescence-based detection and automated electrophoresis were used to assess ccfDNA concentrations. The ccfDNA yield was significantly higher when extracted with the EZ2 kit. The EZ2 kit enabled the isolation of a higher proportion of short fragments and a lower proportion of long fragments, resulting in lower DNA integrity. Significantly lower mtDNA quantities were detected in the Maxwell eluate than in the EZ2 eluate. Thus, decisions on which extraction method to use should proceed on the basis of the required input for downstream applications, the anticipated fragment size and minimum hands-on time., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire., Methods: 235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life., Results: 135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested., Conclusion: This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Recently, we showed a >60% difference in 5-year survival for patients with tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) when stratified by a 101-gene mRNA expression prognostic signature. Given the varied patient outcomes, this study aimed to translate prognostic mRNA markers into protein expression assays by immunohistochemistry and validate their survival association in HGSC., Methods: Two prognostic genes, FOXJ1 and GMNN, were selected based on high-quality antibodies, correlation with protein expression and variation in immunohistochemical scores in a preliminary cohort (n = 134 and n = 80, respectively). Six thousand four hundred and thirty-four (FOXJ1) and 5470 (GMNN) formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded ovarian neoplasms (4634 and 4185 HGSC, respectively) represented on tissue microarrays from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium underwent immunohistochemical staining and scoring, then univariate and multivariate survival analysis., Results: Consistent with mRNA, FOXJ1 protein expression exhibited a linear, increasing association with improved overall survival in HGSC patients. Women with >50% expression had the most favourable outcomes (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.91, p < 0.0001). GMNN protein expression was not significantly associated with overall HSGC patient survival. However, HGSCs with >35% GMNN expression showed a trend for better outcomes, though this was not significant., Conclusion: We provide foundational evidence for the prognostic value of FOXJ1 in HGSC, validating the prior mRNA-based prognostic association by immunohistochemistry., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Advanced-stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) has poor chemotherapy response and prognosis and lacks biomarkers to aid stage I adjuvant treatment. Differentiating primary MOC from gastrointestinal (GI) metastases to the ovary is also challenging due to phenotypic similarities. Clinicopathologic and gene-expression data were analyzed to identify prognostic and diagnostic features., Experimental Design: Discovery analyses selected 19 genes with prognostic/diagnostic potential. Validation was performed through the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium and GI cancer biobanks comprising 604 patients with MOC (n = 333), mucinous borderline ovarian tumors (MBOT, n = 151), and upper GI (n = 65) and lower GI tumors (n = 55)., Results: Infiltrative pattern of invasion was associated with decreased overall survival (OS) within 2 years from diagnosis, compared with expansile pattern in stage I MOC [hazard ratio (HR), 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-7.41, P = 0.042]. Increased expression of THBS2 and TAGLN was associated with shorter OS in MOC patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.51, P = 0.016) and (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45, P = 0.043), respectively. ERBB2 (HER2) amplification or high mRNA expression was evident in 64 of 243 (26%) of MOCs, but only 8 of 243 (3%) were also infiltrative (4/39, 10%) or stage III/IV (4/31, 13%)., Conclusions: An infiltrative growth pattern infers poor prognosis within 2 years from diagnosis and may help select stage I patients for adjuvant therapy. High expression of THBS2 and TAGLN in MOC confers an adverse prognosis and is upregulated in the infiltrative subtype, which warrants further investigation. Anti-HER2 therapy should be investigated in a subset of patients. MOC samples clustered with upper GI, yet markers to differentiate these entities remain elusive, suggesting similar underlying biology and shared treatment strategies., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Cervical cancer is among the leading causes of cancer-related death in females worldwide. Infection by human papillomavirus (HPV) is an established risk factor for cancer development. However, genetic factors contributing to disease risk remain largely unknown. We report on a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 375 German cervical cancer patients and 866 healthy controls, followed by a replication study comprising 658 patients with invasive cervical cancer, 1361 with cervical dysplasia and 841 healthy controls. Functional validation was performed for the top GWAS variant on chromosome 14q12 (rs225902, close to PRKD1). After bioinformatic annotation and in silico predictions, we performed transcript analysis in a cervical tissue series of 317 samples and demonstrate rs225902 as an expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) for FOXG1 and two tightly co-regulated long non-coding RNAs at this genomic region, CTD-2251F13 (lnc-PRKD1-1) and CTD-2503I6 (lnc-FOXG1-6). We also show allele-specific effects of the 14q12 variants via luciferase assays. We propose a combined effect of genotype, HPV status and gene expression at this locus on cervical cancer progression. Taken together, this work uncovers a potential candidate locus with regulatory functions and contributes to the understanding of genetic susceptibility to cervical cancer., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)