Background
Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast has epidemiological, molecular and clinical specificities, and should likely be considered a unique entity. As for genetic susceptibility, CDH1 germline mutations predispose exclusively to ILC. Data are however scarce regarding ILC in women with BRCA1/2 (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) and TP53 (Li‐Fraumeni syndrome) germline mutations.
Methods
We included all breast cancers from female patients tested at our institute between 1992 and 2016 (n = 3469) for which pathology data were available. ILC proportion comparison according to mutational status was performed by a chi‐squared test. The impact of susceptibility genes on ILC proportion was investigated by univariate logistic regression with wild‐type patients as reference.
Results and discussion
There were 265 (7.64%) ILC: 2/342 (0.58%) in BRCA1 patients, 24/238 (10%) in BRCA2 patients, 1/57 (1.75%) in TP53 patients and 238/2832 (8.4%) in non‐carriers. The majority of breast cancers in all groups were invasive ductal and ductal in situ carcinomas. The difference in ILC proportion was highly significant (P < 0.001). Compared to wild‐type patients, BRCA1 was associated with a lower ILC proportion (OR 0.064 [95% CI 0.016;0.259], P < 0.0001). BRCA2 OR was 1.222 [95%CI 0.785;1.902] (P = 0.374), TP53 OR was 0.195 [95%CI 0.027;1.412] (P = 0.105). ILC are therefore underrepresented in BRCA1 and TP53 mutation carriers. Formal significance (P = 0.05) was not reached for TP53, but statistical power was only 38%. Based on ILC incidence in the general population, we make the hypothesis that BRCA1 and TP53 do not predispose to ILC, as the few occurrences of ILC in mutation carriers could be attributed to chance and not to germline mutations. Our observations will be useful to clinical cancer geneticists managing patients with ILC, as a BRCA1 or TP53 mutation in these patients would be unlikely. Genetic counseling should be adapted accordingly.
Background: MSI-H/dMMR is considered the first predictive marker of efficacy for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, around 39% of cases are refractory and additional biomarkers are needed. We explored the prognostic value of pretreatment LIPI in MSI-H/dMMR patients treated with ICIs, including identification of fast-progressors. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study of patients with metastatic MSI-H/dMMR tumors treated with ICIs between April 2014 and May 2019 was performed. LIPI was calculated based on dNLR > 3 and LDH > upper limit of normal. LIPI groups were good (zero factors), intermediate (one factor) and poor (two factors). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), including the fast-progressor rate (OS < 3 months). Results: A total of 151 patients were analyzed, mainly female (59%), with median age 64 years, performance status (PS) 0 (42%), and sporadic dMMR status (68%). ICIs were administered as first or second-line for 59%. The most frequent tumor types were gastrointestinal (66%) and gynecologic (22%). LIPI groups were good (47%), intermediate (43%), and poor (10%). The median follow-up was 32 months. One-year OS rates were 81.0%, 67.1%, and 21.4% for good, intermediate, and poor-risk groups (p <0.0001). After adjustment for tumor site, metastatic sites and PS, LIPI remained independently associated with OS (HR, poor-LIPI: 3.50, 95%CI: 1.46–8.40, p = 0.02. Overall, the fast-progressor rate was 16.0%, and 35.7% with poor-LIPI vs. 7.5% in the good-LIPI group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: LIPI identifies dMMR patients who do not benefit from ICI treatment, particularly fast-progressors. LIPI should be included as a stratification factor for future trials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.