Cancer is associated with significant morbimortality globally. Advances in screening, diagnosis, management and survivorship were substantial in the last decades, however, challenges in providing p... Plain language summary Cancer is associated with significant morbimortality globally. Although significant advances occurred in the last decades, challenges in providing personalized care remain. A...

The introduction of next-generation sequencing has resulted in testing multiple genes simultaneously to identify inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer susceptibility genes. PVs with low minor allele frequencies (MAFs) (< 25–35%) are highlighted on germline genetic test reports. In this review, we focus on the challenges of interpreting PVs with low MAF in breast cancer patients undergoing germline testing and the implications for management. The clinical implications of a germline PV are substantial. For PV carriers in high-penetrance genes like BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, prophylactic mastectomy is often recommended and radiation therapy avoided when possible for those with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). For germline PV carriers in more moderate-risk genes such as PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2, annual breast MRI is recommended and prophylactic mastectomies considered for those with significant family histories. Detection of PVs in cancer susceptibility genes can also lead to recommendations for other prophylactic surgeries (e.g., salpingo-oophorectomy) and increased surveillance for other cancers. Therefore, recognizing when a PV is somatic rather than germline and distinguishing somatic mosaicism from clonal hematopoiesis (CH) is essential. Mutational events that occur at a post-zygotic stage are somatic and will only be present in tissues derived from the mutated cell, characterizing classic mosaicism. Clonal hematopoiesis is a form of mosaicism restricted to the hematopoietic compartment. Among the genes in multi-gene panels used for germline testing of breast cancer patients, the detection of a PV with low MAF occurs most often in TP53, though has been reported in other breast cancer susceptibility genes. Distinguishing a germline TP53 PV (LFS) from a somatic PV (TP53 mosaicism or CH) has enormous implications for breast cancer patients and their relatives. We review how to evaluate a PV with low MAF. The identification of the PV in another tissue confirms mosaicism. Older age, exposure to chemotherapy, radiation, and tobacco are known risk factors for CH, as is the absence of a LFS-related cancer in the setting of a TP53 PV with low MAF. The ability to recognize and understand the implications of somatic PVs, including somatic mosaicism and CH, enables optimal personalized care of breast cancer patients.

Endocrine therapy is the main treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. However, advanced tumors develop resistance to endocrine therapy, rendering it ineffective as the disease progresses. There are several molecular mechanisms of primary and secondary endocrine resistance. Resistance can develop due to either alteration of the estrogen receptor pathway (e.g., ESR1 mutations) or upstream growth factors signaling pathways (e.g., PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway). Despite progress in the development of molecularly targeted anticancer therapies, the emergence of resistance remains a major limitation and an area of unmet need. In this article, we review the mechanisms of acquired endocrine resistance in HR+ advanced breast cancer and discuss current and future investigational therapeutic approaches.

Purpose: We had previously reported on the safety and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of olaparib in combination with the PI3Kα-specific inhibitor alpelisib in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer as studied in a phase 1b trial (NCT01623349). Here, we report on the breast cancer cohort from that study. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or recurrent breast cancer of any subtype with a germline BRCA mutation and were enrolled to a dose-escalation or -expansion cohort. After definition of the RP2D, secondary end points included safety and objective response rate (ORR). Exploratory analyses were performed using circulating-free DNA (cfDNA). Results: Seventeen patients with TNBC were enrolled with a median of three prior lines of chemotherapy. The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were hyperglycemia (18%) and rash (12%). The ORR was 18% (23% for patients treated at the RP2D) and 59% had disease control. The median duration of response was 7.4 months. Analysis of cfDNA tumor fractions (TFx) revealed that patients with TFx < 15% after completion of the first cycle had a longer progression-free survival compared with those with TFx ≥ 15% (6.0 vs. 0.9 months; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: Alpelisib in combination with olaparib is tolerable in patients with pre-treated TNBC, with evidence of activity in non-BRCA carriers. cfDNA provided important prognostic information. Results highlight potential synergistic use of a PI3K inhibitor to sensitize HR-proficient (BRCA wild-type) TNBC to PARP inhibition and suggest the potential to expand the use of PARP inhibition beyond BRCA-mutant tumors.

Purpose: The identification of patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) beyond BRCA1/2 mutations is an urgent task, as they may benefit from PARP inhibitors. We have previously developed a method to detect mutational signature 3 (Sig3), termed SigMA, associated with HRD from clinical panel sequencing data, that is able to reliably detect HRD from the limited sequencing data derived from gene-focused panel sequencing. Experimental Design: We apply this method to patients from two independent datasets: (i) high-grade serous ovarian cancer and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) from a phase Ib trial of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with the PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120; NCT01623349), and (ii) TNBC patients who received neoadjuvant olaparib in the phase II PETREMAC trial (NCT02624973). Results: We find that Sig3 as detected by SigMA is positively associated with improved progression-free survival and objective responses. In addition, comparison of Sig3 detection in panel and exome-sequencing data from the same patient samples demonstrated highly concordant results and superior performance in comparison with the genomic instability score. Conclusions: Our analyses demonstrate that HRD can be detected reliably from panel-sequencing data that are obtained as part of routine clinical care, and that this approach can identify patients beyond those with germline BRCA1/2mut who might benefit from PARP inhibitors. Prospective clinical utility testing is warranted.

Poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) are approved for BRCA1/2 carriers with HER2-negative breast cancer in the adjuvant setting with a high risk of recurrence as well as the metastatic setting. However, the indications for PARPi are broader for patients with other cancer types (e.g., prostate and ovarian cancer), involving additional biomarkers (e.g., ATM, PALB2, and CHEK) and genomic instability scores. Herein, we summarize the data on PARPi and breast cancer and discuss their use beyond BRCA carriers.