Search

Phase III cancer prevention clinical trials have shown that breast cancer prevention is feasible using anti-estrogen drugs. However, these drugs have not been widely accepted because of concerns about toxicity. In addition, anti-estrogen drugs do not prevent estrogen-negative breast cancers, including the most aggressive form of breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), that does not express the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, or the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Our laboratory is focused on identifying growth-regulatory molecules that are essential for the growth of TNBCs. For this study, we identified mTOR as an essential growth-regulatory molecule that is highly expressed in TNBCs. We then investigated whether the mTOR inhibitor everolimus can prevent mammary tumors in transgenic mouse models including 4 models of TNBC and one model of ER-negative/HER2-positive breast cancer. Everolimus treatment significantly delayed mammary tumor formation but with a varying degree in all five mouse models. Everolimus treatment for up to 1 year was well tolerated with no observable toxicity. These results suggest that mTOR inhibitors may be promising drugs for the prevention of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers in women at risk of these aggressive breast cancers. Grant support: This research was supported by an NCI-PREVENT contract to P. Brown and A. Mazumdar (HHSN261201500018I/HHSN26100006). Citation Format: Powel H. Brown, Abhijit Mazumdar, William Tahaney, Jamal Hill, Yun Zhang, Sumankalai Ramachandran, Jitesh Kawedia, Jing Qian, Alejandra Contreras, Michelle Savage, Lana Vornik. Targeting the mTOR pathway for the prevention of triple-negative breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Precision Prevention, Early Detection, and Interception of Cancer; 2022 Nov 17-19; Austin, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2023;16(1 Suppl): Abstract nr IA017.

Mitochondrial dysfunction has consequences not only for cellular energy output but also for cellular signaling pathways. Mitochondrial dysfunction, often based on inherited gene variants, plays a role in devastating human conditions such as mitochondrial neuropathies, myopathies, cardiovascular disorders, and Parkinson and Alzheimer diseases. Of the proteins essential for mitochondrial function, more than 98% are encoded in the cell nucleus, translated in the cytoplasm, sorted based on the presence of encoded mitochondrial targeting sequences (MTSs), and imported to specific mitochondrial sub-compartments based on the integrated activity of a series of mitochondrial translocases, proteinases, and chaperones. This import process is typically dynamic; as cellular homeostasis is coordinated through communication between the mitochondria and the nucleus, many of the adaptive responses to stress depend on modulation of mitochondrial import. We here describe an emerging class of disease-linked gene variants that are found to impact the mitochondrial import machinery itself or to affect the proteins during their import into mitochondria. As a whole, this class of rare defects highlights the importance of correct trafficking of mitochondrial proteins in the cell and the potential implications of failed targeting on metabolism and energy production. The existence of this variant class could have importance beyond rare neuromuscular disorders, given an increasing body of evidence suggesting that aberrant mitochondrial function may impact cancer risk and therapeutic response.

Purpose Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. Methods We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01736345), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. Results Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 ( P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety ( P = .04), state anxiety ( P = .03), depression ( P = .04), and uncertainty ( P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety ( P = .05) and cancer-specific distress ( P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty ( P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. Conclusion MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

Purpose To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multi-gene panel testing. Patients and Methods Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) of test results (i.e., usual care). All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. Results 473 participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p

Through tumor genomic profiling (TGP), existing and novel treatments can be selected to better target the specific dysregulated molecular pathways that drive growth and spread of a patient's tumor. Although the primary purpose of TGP is to detect targetable somatic mutations for treatment, TGP may also uncover germline mutations with important implications for patients and family members. Oncology care providers should be aware of the hereditary cancer risks associated with genes commonly tested by TGP. Further, patients should be informed about the possible discovery of hereditary cancer risk information and the relevance of this information to their health and that of family members, and should have their preferences toward further evaluation of hereditary risk information that could be revealed by TGP documented in the medical record and followed.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Background Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Background: Women with “triple-negative breast cancer” (TNBC), are currently treated with chemotherapy, and have a very poor prognosis. TNBC tumors also frequently have p53 and BRCA1 gene mutations. Dysregulation of PI3K-mTOR pathway has been commonly associated with ER-negative breast cancers with poor prognosis. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus is used to treat ER-positive tumors that have become resistant to anti-estrogen therapy. We hypothesized that targeting mTOR may prevent development of ER-negative and BRCA1-mutant breast cancers and asked whether the mTOR inhibitor everolimus exhibited tumor preventive efficacy in several mouse models of breast cancer. Methods: p53-null mammary gland donor mice were transplanted into cleared fat pads of p53 wild-type mice. BRCA/p53-deficient mice: We produced BRCA1 mice by breeding males and females. All mice were separated into two groups 1) Control and 2) everolimus. MMTV-erbB2 and p53 null mammary gland mice were treated with everolimus (5mg/kg, by oral gavage). BRACA1 mice were given 2mg/kg and 5mg/kg 2X a week of everolimus. All of these mice spontaneously developed mammary tumors within 12 months. Mice were observed daily, toxicity and the percentage of tumor free mice were recorded. Tumor incidence and time to tumor formation was visualized using Kaplan- Meier curves and analyzed using the generalized Wilcoxon test. Results: In MMTV-erbB2 mice everolimus reduced tumor incidence and was associated with an increase in median survival time from 240 days to 410 days. At 365 days, when all mice in control group died, only half of the mice treated with everolimus had developed tumors (p=0.0001). Everolimus also reduced tumor incidence in p53 null mammary gland mice. At 420 days, 50% of the control mice developed mammary tumors compare to only 7 % of the everolimus treated mice (p=0.04). Everolimus also reduced tumor incidence in BRCA1 mice. At 262 days, when 13 (out of 18) (72%) of the control mice developed mammary tumors compare to only 7 (out of 18) (38%) in everolimus treated group developed tumors (p=0.02). Long term treatment (>150 days) of everolimus was associated with mild toxicity that includes slight weight loss ( Conclusions: The mTOR inhibitor everolimus prevented mammary tumorigenesis in all three mouse models. Our results suggest that everolimus can be an effective cancer preventive drug and that further studies with reduced everolimus dose alone or in combination with other targeted therapies are warranted. In the future, clinical trials of the everolimus should be considered for the prevention of breast cancer in high-risk patients. Supported by NCI PREVENT Cancer Preclinical Drug Development Program (HHSN-2612015000-18I (PB)). Citation Format: Abhijit Mazumdar, Jamal Hill, Yun Zhang, Lakshmi Reddy Bollu, Alejandro Contreras, Michelle Savage, Shizuko Sei, Altaf Mohammed, Powel Brown. Targeting the mTOR/TORC Pathway for the prevention of er-negative and triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 5072.

e15728 Background: Germline pathogenic variants (PV) in hereditary cancer risk genes are found in ~10-15% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas/cancers (PC), but most cases of familial PC have no identifiable genetic cause. Chronic pancreatitis is an established risk factor for PC, with a lifetime risk of PC of 10-30%, and has been associated with germline mutations in several genes: PRSS1, SPINK1, CASR, CTRC, and CFTR. Few studies have examined the prevalence of PV in the pancreatitis risk genes among patients reporting a personal or family history (FHx) of PC. Methods: The FCCC Risk Assessment Program (RAP) database was queried to identify patients tested for PRSS1, SPINK1, CASR, CTRC, and CFTR as part of risk assessment. Pedigrees, demographic and cancer history data were reviewed. De-identified data from Invitae on patients found to be CFTR+ on hereditary pancreatitis testing were also reviewed for personal/FHx of PC. Results: 26 patients with PC and 48 patients with a FHx of PC underwent germline testing for the pancreatitis genes at FCCC. 7 of 26 (26.9%) patients with PC carried at least one CFTR mutation, while 3 of 48 (6.3%) patients with a FHx of PC carried a CFTR mutation. Interestingly, 8 patients carried an intronic variant in the CFTR gene. No patients with PC and 2 of 48 (4.2%) patients with a FHx of PC carried a SPINK1 mutation. The CFTR mutation rate in PC patients exceeded the expected carrier rate (2.6-3.6%)(p < 0.001). The SPINK1 mutation rate in PC patients also exceeded the expected carrier rate but was not statistically significant (1.9%)(p = 0.23). CaSR, PRSS1, and CTRC mutations were not identified in our population. Personal/FHx data were available to review for 175 of the 496 CFTR+ patients tested through Invitae. 49 of 175 (28%) had a personal history of PC and 105 of 175 (60%) had a reported FHx of PC. Strikingly, 23% of CFTR+ patients carried pathogenic mutations in other genes (most commonly SPINK1). Conclusions: In our select sample, CFTR mutations, and in particular a known intronic variant, were highly enriched in a population of patients undergoing risk assessment for hereditary PC. Commercial data suggest a substantial minority of CFTR+ carriers with a personal/FHx of PC may also carry SPINK1 mutations.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.

1513Background: uMMR of CRC/EC for Lynch syndrome (LS) is recommended to identify the 2-3% of incident CRC/EC with germline MMR mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Many US centers use a positive immunohistochemical (IHC+) tumor test to prompt further evaluation such as genetic counseling (GC). Efficacy of uMMR is established, but real-world performance is not. W/recent Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations for broad implementation, we reviewed uMMR effectiveness in an academic cancer center. Methods: Outcomes of all CRC/EC undergoing uMMR from 9/2011 (start of uMMR at Fox Chase Cancer Center) to 12/2017 were reviewed. uMMR results are reported in the surgical pathology report and by email to providers w/a PDF test report meant for pts. Results [IHC, MSI, BRAF, MLH1 promoter methylation, gene testing] and clinical data were extracted from a clinical genetics database and the EMR. Associations were tested by chi-square and T-test (2-sided). Results: From 1156 screened tumors, 278 (24.0%) had +IHC: 112 (40....

1585 Background: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition has rapidly changed over the past few years with the introduction of multigene panel testing. Multigene testing has evolved from disease-agnostic comprehensive (C) panels alone to include disease-specific but expanded (DSE) panels as well as guideline-based (GB) panels. We analyzed trends in utilization of genetic testing over a two-year period in one NCI-designated Cancer Center, hypothesizing that over time genetic testing usage would trend toward more disease-specific panels. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of our program’s database for all germline genetic tests ordered from 9/1/2013 to 8/31/2015 (n = 619; 246 in year 1, and 373 in year 2). Tests were categorized into three groups based on specificity: GB (range: 2-12 genes tested), DSE (12-35 genes tested), and C (28-80 genes tested). The Chi-square test was used to analyze test types ordered in year 1 (9/1/2013-8/31/2014) and year 2 (9/1/2014 – 8/31/2015) and the proportions of resulting mutation types. Results: A total of 604 germline genetic tests met the inclusion criteria: 39 GB (20 year 1, 19 year 2), 171 DSE (43 year 1, 128 year 2), and 394 C (180 year 1, 214 year 2). Compared to year 1, a larger proportion of DSE tests (35% v. 18%, p < 0.001), and a smaller proportion of C tests (59% v. 74%, p < 0.001) and GB tests (5% vs. 8%, p = 0.146) were ordered. DSE panels revealed a pathogenic variant (PV) at a rate of 16% and a variant of unknown significance (VUS) at a rate of 24%. C tests revealed a PV and VUS at rates of 14% and 29%, respectively. GB tests revealed a PV and VUS at rates of 21% and 18%, respectively. No statistically significant differences in detection rates of mutation types (PV or VUS) were found between GB, DSE, or C tests. Conclusions: The rates of PV detection were not significantly different between test types, but the profile of tests ordered changed over time to favor DSE panels. Exploration of factors contributing to changing trends in genetic testing are warranted as counselors and clinicians adapt to the quickly expanding number of genes associated with hereditary cancer risks, many of them moderate-risk, and the evolving landscape of multigene panel testing.

e13119 Background: Pts having CA surgery have high information needs related to diagnosis, stage, and what caused their CA. Direct EMR access via web portals has grown, and offers a novel means to integrate supplemental health information into the e-chart, such as relevant genetic risk of CA. The AWARE trial (Advancing Web-based Medical Record Access and Risk Evaluation for Cancer Patients) studied the impact of providing personalized pathology (pPATH) and pers/fam history (PFHx) summaries enhanced with information about genetic CA risk and risk assessment. Methods: Peri-op CA pts completed baseline and 3-mo follow-up surveys. Pts randomized to enhanced (E) arm received pPATH & PFHx summaries with embedded tailored info about genetic CA risk and relevant high-risk features. Unenhanced (U) arm got pPATH & PFHx only. Use of summaries and 2 “Genetic risk: Learn more” links was tracked. Outcomes-Primary: awareness, knowledge (of genetic CA risk); Secondary: perceived risk, use of “Learn more” links, intentions/actions toward risk assessment--were stratified by genetic risk factors reported at baseline (0-1, 2+) & use of “Learn more” links. Results: 171 pts consented; men (p = 0.003) & non-White (p = 0.02) were more likely to decline the study. Overall 149 (87%) were randomized & eligible to use AWARE: 109 (73%) logged in, 120 (81%) completed follow-up. Predictors of AWARE use: White race (p < 0.05), sib w/CA (p < 0.05), and use intention (p = 0.005). Reporting 2+ genetic risk factors at baseline predicted use of pPATH, PFHx, and “Learn more” (all p < 0.001). Awareness increased overall (p < 0.002), but between arm changes in primary outcomes were not significant. E arm (vs U) was borderline more likely to seek risk assessment (32% v 18%, p = 0.09), with impact stronger in pts reporting baseline 0-1 (p = 0.035) vs 2+ risk factors (p = 0.7). Among E arm pts who used “Learn more” links, intentions (p = 0.054) & behaviors (p = 0.035) to seek risk assessment increased. Conclusions: AWARE increased genetic risk awareness overall, but primary outcomes were not met. Usage data and secondary outcomes highlight potential for EMR-based interventions to positively impact preventive behaviors toward genetic risk assessment.

Elemental concentrations of a unicellular alga, Chlorella vulgaris, were evaluated by particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE). The probed algal cells generated a significant amount of phosphorus and sulfur X-ray emission. Phosphorus- and sulfur-containing compounds can provide potential binding sites for metal ions. Competitive binding of six metal ions, Ag, Ba, Cd, Cu, Hg, and Pb, to the algae was studied. It was found that Ag, Ba, Cd, Cu, and Pb are attached to a similar binding site with a binding efficiency varying in the sequence Pb > Cu > Ag > Cd > Ba. The binding of Hg to algae involves a different binding site. Silver was found to increase the binding of mercuric chloride to the algae.