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.

No abstract

Approximately 5% to 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer will have a pathogenic variant (PV) in a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, and this has significant implications for the management of these patients and their relatives. Despite the benefits of genetic testing, many eligible patients with breast cancer never undergo testing because of various barriers, including complicated testing criteria such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). In 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) proposed germline genetic testing for all patients with breast cancer to increase the identification of PV carriers. In 2020, a Mayo Clinic study highlighted the limitations of these 2 genetic testing guidelines (NCCN and ASBrS) and proposed a hybrid approach of testing all women diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 65 years and using NCCN criteria for older patients. This commentary presents an updated analysis of the Mayo Clinic data and discusses the rationale for using the age of 60 years rather than 65 years as the cutoff for this hybrid approach. Using an age at diagnosis of ≤60 or ≤65 years for the universal testing of patients with breast cancer detected more PVs (11.9% [16 of 134] and 15.7% [21 of 134], respectively) in comparison with using the NCCN criteria. Lowering the age for universal testing from 65 to 60 years maintained the sensitivity of detecting a PV at >90% while sparing testing for an additional 10% of women. Compared with the testing of all patients, the hybrid approach would allow 31% of all women with breast cancer to forgo testing and result in fewer variants of uncertain significance identified and, therefore, would decrease the chance of harm from misinterpretation of these variants.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are known to cause a variety of immune-related adverse events, including pneumonitis. When symptomatic, treatment typically consists of temporary or permanent cessation of the checkpoint inhibitor and several weeks of corticosteroid therapy. However, a subset of patients may suffer from severe pneumonitis, and the optimal treatment for this group is not known. Here we describe the case of a patient receiving pembrolizumab for non-small cell lung cancer who developed severe checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis. After treatment with high-dose corticosteroids failed to produce a response, a course of intravenous immunoglobulin catalyzed rapid and durable improvement. In this review, we discuss the current evidence regarding the incidence and outcomes of severe checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis and propose a role for intravenous immunoglobulin as a possible treatment strategy.

The kidney is the most common organ affected by immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis and monoclonal immunoglobulin deposition disease (MIDD), often leading to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). High-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation (HDM/SCT) is effective for selected patients with AL amyloidosis, with high rates of complete hematologic response and potential for improved organ dysfunction. Data on tolerability and response to HDM/SCT in patients with ESRD due to AL amyloidosis and MIDD are limited. We analyzed data on toxicity, efficacy, and hematologic and renal response of HDM/SCT in 32 patients with AL amyloidosis and 4 patients with MIDD who were dialysis-dependent for ESRD treated at Boston Medical Center between 1994 and 2016. The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities were infections (75%), metabolic abnormalities (56%), mucositis (42%), constitutional symptoms (39%), pulmonary complications (39%), and diarrhea (28%). Treatment related mortality (defined as death within 100 days of SCT) occurred in 8% (3 of 36). A complete hematologic response was achieved in 70% of evaluable patients (19 of 27) at 1 year after HDM/SCT. In the entire cohort, median overall survival (OS) after HDM/SCT was 5.8 years; median OS was 1 year for those who did not achieve a complete hematologic response and 8 years for those who did achieve a complete hematologic response. Twelve patients (33%) underwent kidney transplantation after successful treatment with HDM/SCT at a median of 2.4 years after SCT. HDM/SCT is safe and effective in inducing hematologic complete responses and prolonging survival in patients with ESRD from AL amyloidosis and MIDD. Achievement of a durable hematologic response can make these patients possible candidates for renal transplantation.

Cancer is associated with significant morbimortality globally. Advances in screening, diagnosis, management and survivorship were substantial in the last decades, however, challenges in providing personalized and data-oriented care remain. Artificial intelligence (AI), a branch of computer science used for predictions and automation, has emerged as potential solution to improve the healthcare journey and to promote precision in healthcare. AI applications in oncology include, but are not limited to, optimization of cancer research, improvement of clinical practice (eg., prediction of the association of multiple parameters and outcomes – prognosis and response) and better understanding of tumor molecular biology. In this review, we examine the current state of AI in oncology, including fundamentals, current applications, limitations and future perspectives.

No abstract

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 &lt; 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.