CDH1 Genotype Exploration in Women With Hereditary Lobular Breast Cancer Phenotype

Importance

Pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline CDH1 variants are associated with risk for diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer (LBC) in the so-called hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) syndrome. However, in some circumstances, LBC can be the first manifestation of this syndrome in the absence of diffuse gastric cancer manifestation.

Objectives

To evaluate the frequency of germline CDH1 variants in women with the hereditary LBC (HLBC) phenotype, somatic CDH1 gene inactivation in germline CDH1 variant carriers' tumor samples, and the association of genetic profiles with clinical-pathological data and survival.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This single-center, longitudinal, prospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2021, with follow-up until January 31, 2023. Women with LBC seen at the European Institute of Oncology were included. Testing for germline CDH1, BRCA1, and BRCA2 genes was performed. Somatic profiling was assessed for germline CDH1 carriers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Accurate estimates of prevalence of germline CDH1 variants among patients with HLBC and the association of somatic sequence alteration with HLBC syndrome. The Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model were applied for overall and disease-free survival analysis.

Results

Of 5429 cases of primary LBC, familial LBC phenotype accounted for 1867 (34.4%). A total of 394 women with LBC were tested, among whom 15 germline CDH1 variants in 15 unrelated families were identified. Among these variants, 6 (40.0%) were P/LP, with an overall frequency of 1.5% (6 of 394). Of the 6 probands with P/LP CDH1 LBC, 5 (83.3%) had a positive family history of BC and only 1 (16.7%) had sporadic juvenile early-onset LBC. No germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were identified in CDH1 carriers. An inactivating CDH1 mechanism (second hit) was identified in 4 of 6 explored matched tumor samples (66.7%) in P/LP germline carriers. The P/LP CDH1 LBC variant carriers had a significantly lower age at diagnosis compared with the group carrying CDH1 variants of unknown significance or likely benign (42.5 [IQR, 38.3-43.0] vs 51.0 [IQR, 45.0-53.0] years; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, P/LP germline CDH1 variants were identified in individuals not fulfilling the classic clinical criteria for HDGC screening, suggesting that identification of these variants may provide a novel method to test women with LBC with early age at diagnosis and/or positive family history of BC.

Germline pathogenic variants in metaplastic breast cancer patients and the emerging role of the BRCA1 gene

Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) is a rare, aggressive breast cancer (BC) histotype. Scarce information is available about MpBC genetic predisposition. Previous studies, mainly consisting of case reports, retrospective reviews and others on target therapies, pointed to a possible involvement of the BRCA1 gene in increasing MpBC risk, without ever confirming it. In this study, we retrospectively reviewed all BC patients counseled at our Institute for genetic testing of at least BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) genes and we found that 23 (23/5226 = 0.4%) were affected by MpBC. About 65% (15/23) of MpBC patients harbored a germline pathogenic variant (PV): 13 in BRCA1 (86.7%), including two patients who received genetic testing for known familial PV, one in TP53 (6.7%), and one in MLH1 (6.7%). We observed a statistically different frequency of MpBC in patients who carried a PV in the BRCA genes (13/1114 = 1.2%) vs. all other BC patients (10/4112 = 0.2%) (p = 0.0002). BRCA carriers proved to have an increased risk of developing MpBC compared to all other BC patients who were tested for BRCA genes (OR = 4.47; 95% CI: 1.95-10.23). Notably, MpBCs were diagnosed in 2.1% (13/610) of BRCA1 carriers. No MpBCs were observed in BRCA2 carriers (0/498 = 0%), revealing a statistically significant difference between the prevalence of MpBCs in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (p = 0.0015). Our results confirmed that BRCA1 is involved in MpBC predisposition. Further studies on unselected patients are needed to elucidate the authentic role of BRCA1 and to explore the possible implication of other genes in MpBC predisposition.

Clinical Implication of CDH1 Mutations in Genetic Testing for Diffuse Gastric Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to reclassify published germline CDH1 variants identified in gastric cancer (GC) in accordance with the latest ClinVar definition and to correlate their pathogenicity with the established international clinical criteria for genetic testing.

METHODS

The relevant literature dating from 1998 to 2019 was systematically searched for data on CDH1 germline mutations in accord with PRISMA guidelines. The collected variants were classified according to the latest ClinVar definition into the following classes: benign (B), likely benign (LB), pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), and variant of unknown significance (VUS). The McNemar test was used to compare the adequacy of current versus previous International GC Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) criteria.

RESULTS

We reclassified a total of 247 CDH1 variants, and we identified that about 70% of B/LB variant carriers were not fulfilling the defined clinical criteria. Instead, all P/LP variants (100%) were associated with the hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) phenotype fulfilling the 2020 ILGCC criteria, with a significant improvement (p = 0.025) compared to previous version.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that germline CDH1 genetic testing is indicated only in families meeting the clinical criteria for the HDGC syndrome. This observation suggests that clinical phenotypes that do not clearly fulfill these criteria should not be considered for CDH1 genetic testing.

Metaplastic breast cancer: an all-round multidisciplinary consensus

Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) is a rare and aggressive histologic subtype of breast cancer (BC) characterized by the presence of at least two cellular types, commonly epithelial and mesenchymal components. Despite growing evidence that MpBC is a unique entity, it has long been treated as a variant of nonspecial type (NST) BC. MpBC typically shows the phenotype of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but compared to NST-TNBC, it is a relatively chemorefractory tumor associated with worse outcomes. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop management guidelines specifically for MpBC to improve the prognosis of patients with early MpBC. This expert consensus aims to guide diagnosis and standardize clinical management of early MpBC among treating physicians. We provide guidance on the challenging radiological and pathological diagnosis of MpBC. Evidence on the involvement of genetic predisposition in the development of MpBC is also explored. We emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of patients with early MpBC. The optimal surgery and radiotherapy approach is presented, as well as the opportunity offered by novel therapeutic approaches to increase treatment response in this chemoresistant subtype. Appropriate management of patients with MpBC is critical to reduce the high risk of local and distant recurrence that characterizes this disease.

Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction: International Multicenter Pooled Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has been developed to reduce conspicuous scar and increase the quality of life in women. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of RNSM with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This international multicenter, pooled analysis of individual patient-level data enrolled a total of 755 procedures in 659 women (609 had breast cancer and 50 underwent risk-reducing mastectomy) who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with IBR. Surgical and oncologic outcomes, including 30-days postoperative (POD 30d) complication rate, nipple necrosis rate, grade of Clavien-Dindo classification, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were evaluated. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors.

RESULTS

The median age of both the RNSM and CNSM groups was 45 years. The RNSM group had lower body mass index (BMI) and a higher proportion of benign disease compared with the CNSM group. POD 30d complications and postoperative complication grade III rates were lower in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (p < 0.05). The nipple necrosis rate was 2.2% and 7.8% for RNSM and CNSM, respectively (p = 0.002). After propensity score matching, significantly lower rates of POD 30d complications, nipple necrosis, and postoperative complication grade III occurred in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (all p < 0.05). Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RNSM can provide better cosmetic results with favorable surgical and oncologic outcomes for women with early breast cancer or BRCA mutation.

CDH1 germline mutations in healthy individuals from families with the hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome

The objective of this study was to determining the frequency of different sub-types of pathogenic CDH1 germline mutations in healthy and asymptomatic individuals from families with the hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) syndrome. Relevant literature dating from 1998 to 2019 was systematically searched for data on CDH1 germline mutations. The collected variants were classified according to their subtype into the following classes: missense, non-sense, splicing, insertions and deletions. The χ² test was used to estimate if the difference observed between patients with gastric cancer (GC) and unaffected individuals was statistically significant. CDH1 genetic screening data were retrieved for 224 patients with GC and 289 healthy individuals. Among the subjects that had tested CDH1 positive, splicing mutations were found in 30.4% of the healthy individuals and in 15.2% of the patients with GC (p=0.0076). Missense mutations were also found to occur in healthy subjects with higher frequency (22.2%) than in GC-affected individuals (18.3%), but the difference was not significant in this case. In families meeting the clinical criteria for the HDGC syndrome, CDH1 splicing and missense germline mutations have been reported to occur with higher frequency in healthy subjects than in patients with cancer. This preliminary observation suggests that not all pathogenic CDH1 germline mutations confer the same risk of developing GC.

Metaplastic breast cancer: Prognostic and therapeutic considerations

INTRODUCTION

Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is a rare condition of breast tumor with different subtypes, considered a disease with worse prognosis; treatments and survival are often unclear and conflicting.

METHODS

We consecutively collected 153 primary MBCs of different subtypes. Breast surgery, neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, clinic-pathological factors, number and type of events during follow-up were considered to evaluate overall survival (OS) and invasive disease-free survival (IDFS).

RESULTS

The majority of MBC was triple-negative (TN) subtype (88.7%), G3 (95.3%), pN0 (70.6%), and with high levels of Ki-67 (93.5%). For OS and IDFS, no significant associations were seen between the different MBC subtypes. The matched triple-negative MBC (TNMBC) and ductal TNBC cohorts had similar prognosis both in terms of OS (p = .411) and IDFS (p = .981). We observed a positive trend for TNMBC patients treated in the adjuvant setting with the cyclofosfamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil protocol for better OS (p = .090) and IDFS (p = .087). A poor or absent response rate was observed in the neoadjuvant setting.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that metaplastic and ductal breast cancers with TN phenotype are similar in terms of overall and disease-free survival. Metaplastic cancers are poorly responsive to neoadjuvant treatment, and in the absence of novel targeted therapies, surgical treatment remains the first choice.

How Useful Are Tumor Markers in Detecting Metastases with FDG-PET/CT during Breast Cancer Surveillance?

BACKGROUND

To assess the clinical usefulness of serum tumor markers for early detection of distant breast cancer recurrence using FDG-PET/CT.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 561 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for invasive primary breast cancer and had increased tumor markers (CA 15-3 and CEA) after completion of locoregional therapy. FDG-PET/CT data were reviewed for all cases. CA 15-3 and CEA were evaluated both in a continuous and in a quartile (Q) distribution. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between increased tumor marker values and the presence (and type) of distant metastases.

RESULTS

The median value of CA 15-3 was 35.0 U/mL (IQR, 29.5-43.0) in cases where no distant metastases were detected, and it was 58.9 U/mL (IQR, 40.0-108.0) in cases where metastases were detected (p < 0.001). The median value of CEA was 6.6 U/mL (IQR, 4.4-10.0) in cases of no metastases and 12.4 U/mL (IQR, 6.9-30.0) in cases of metastases (p < 0.001). Increased levels of both tumor markers (Q3 and Q4) were strongly associated with the presence of distant metastases. The association between CA 15-3 and bone/liver metastases was stronger compared with other types of metastases (p heterogeneity between odds ratios [ORs] = 0.03 for Q3 and <0.001 for Q4), while no relevant heterogeneity between ORs emerged for CEA.

CONCLUSION

Increased tumor marker levels detected in asymptomatic breast cancer patients during adjuvant therapies and follow-up are significantly predictive of distant metastases identified on FDG-PET/CT.

Multicentric breast cancer with heterogeneous histopathology: a multidisciplinary review

Multiple synchronous (multifocal or multicentric) ipsilateral breast cancers with heterogeneous histopathology are a rare clinical occurrence, however, their incidence is increasing due to the use of MRI for breast cancer screening and staging. Some studies have demonstrated poorer clinical outcomes for this pattern of breast cancer, but there is no evidence to guide clinical practice. In this multidisciplinary review, we reflect on pathology and molecular characteristics, imaging findings, surgical management including conservation and reconstructive options and approach to the axilla, and the role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary discussions appear decisive in planning an appropriate surgical choice and defining the correct systemic treatment tailored to each clinical condition.

Validation of a panel of risk factors for predicting breast cancer reappearance

e12004

Background: The aim of this clinical study was to assess a panel of risk factors for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and de novo contralateral breast cancer (BC) after primary BC treatment. Methods: Retrospectively, 15,168 consecutive patients with primary monolateral BC were enrolled in this monocentric study (1994-2006). Clinicopathological features, follow-up and survival at 15 years were considered for statistical analysis. Results: Significant increased risk for IBTR were verified with younger age ( < 50 years) [HR = 1.31 (1.15-1.49), p < 0.0001], lobular subtype [HR 1.40 (1.15-1.70), p = 0.0007)], pT3 [HR 1.90 (1.42-2.54), p < 0.0001] or pT4 [HR 2.70 (1.47-4.97), p = 0.001], metastatic axillary lymph nodes [HR 1.50 (1.29-1.73), p < 0.0001], peritumoral vascular invasion (PVI) [HR = 1.27 (1.10-1.46), p = 0.001], luminal B [HR 1.57 (1.33-1.87), p < 0.0001], HER2-positivity [HR 1.85 (1.32-2.59), p = 0.0004] and triple-negative subtype [HR 1.76 (1.28-2.43), p = 0.0005]. Older age ( > 70 years) [HR 1.50 (1.05-2.15), p = 0.03] and positive family history [HR 1.86 (1.48-2.34), p < 0.0001] were risk factors for contralateral BC. Significant protective factors for IBTR were mucinous subtype [HR 0.45 (0.27-0.77), p = 0.003], total mastectomy [HR = 0.37 (0.30-0.46), p < 0.0001], hormonotherapy [HR 0.56 (0.45-0.69), p < 0.0001], chemotherapy [HR 0.77 (0.66-0.90), p = 0.001] and external radiotherapy [HR 0.39 (0.31-0.50), p < 0.0001]. Hormonotherapy was also confirmed as a protective factor for contralateral second BC [HR 0.51 (0.38-0.69), p < 0.0001]. Cumulative incidence for IBTR at 5, 10, and 15 years was higher than for than for contralateral BC. Conversely, overall survival for IBTR was lower than for contralateral BC. Conclusions: We classified factors influencing IBTR and contralateral BC into high- and low-risk groups. The high-risk group for IBTR included: age < 50 years, positive axillary nodes, PVI positivity, luminal B, HER2-positive, lobular and triple-negative subtypes. The low-risk group included: adjuvant treatments (hormone-chemotherapy, external radiotherapy) and mucinous histotype. We hypothesize that in the low-risk group, adjuvant treatments exert a strong impact in the prevention of IBTR risk (HER2-positive and triple negative BC should be considered also for neo-adjuvant therapies); this was not confirmed in the high-risk group, in which a more aggressive surgery is still theoretically justified. The proposed panel represents the basis for a nomogram to predict BC reappearance.

Hereditary lobular breast cancer with an emphasis on E-cadherin genetic defect

Recent studies have reported germline CDH1 mutations in cases of lobular breast cancer (LBC) not associated with the classical hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome. A multidisciplinary workgroup discussed genetic susceptibility, pathophysiology and clinical management of hereditary LBC (HLBC). The team has established the clinical criteria for CDH1 screening and results' interpretation, and created consensus guidelines regarding genetic counselling, breast surveillance and imaging techniques, clinicopathological findings, psychological and decisional support, as well as prophylactic surgery and plastic reconstruction. Based on a review of current evidence for the identification of HLBC cases/families, CDH1 genetic testing is recommended in patients fulfilling the following criteria: (A) bilateral LBC with or without family history of LBC, with age at onset <50 years, and (B) unilateral LBC with family history of LBC, with age at onset <45 years. In CDH1 asymptomatic mutant carriers, breast surveillance with clinical examination, yearly mammography, contrast-enhanced breast MRI and breast ultrasonography (US) with 6-month interval between the US and the MRI should be implemented as a first approach. In selected cases with personal history, family history of LBC and CDH1 mutations, prophylactic mastectomy could be discussed with an integrative group of clinical experts. Psychodecisional support also plays a pivotal role in the management of individuals with or without CDH1 germline alterations. Ultimately, the definition of a specific protocol for CDH1 genetic screening and ongoing coordinated management of patients with HLBC is crucial for the effective surveillance and early detection of LBC.