Explore the vast range of titles available.

The BRCA Challenge is a long-term data-sharing project initiated within the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to aggregate BRCA1 and BRCA2 data to support highly collaborative research activities. Its goal is to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the iconic cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Initially, reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org. The purpose of the BRCA Exchange is to provide the community with a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype. More than 20,000 variants have been aggregated, three times the number found in the next-largest public database at the project's outset, of which approximately 7,250 have expert classifications. The data set is based on shared information from existing clinical databases-Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC), ClinVar, and the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)-as well as population databases, all linked to a single point of access. The BRCA Challenge has brought together the existing international Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium expert panel, along with expert clinicians, diagnosticians, researchers, and database providers, all with a common goal of advancing our understanding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation. Ongoing work includes direct contact with national centers with access to BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic data to encourage data sharing, development of methods suitable for extraction of genetic variation at the level of individual laboratory reports, and engagement with participant communities to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of genetic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors combined with immunotherapy have shown antitumour activity in preclinical studies. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of olaparib in combination with the PD-L1-inhibitor, durvalumab, in patients with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated metastatic breast cancer. The MEDIOLA trial is a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2, basket trial of durvalumab and olaparib in solid tumours. Patients were enrolled into four initial cohorts: germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic breast cancer; germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic ovarian cancer; metastatic gastric cancer; and relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report on the cohort of patients with breast cancer. Patients who were aged 18 years or older (or aged 19 years or older in South Korea) with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated or both and histologically confirmed, progressive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer were enrolled from 14 health centres in the UK, the USA, Israel, France, Switzerland, and South Korea. Patients should not have received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients received 300 mg olaparib in tablet form orally twice daily for 4 weeks and thereafter a combination of olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1·5 g via intravenous infusion every 4 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and 12-week disease control rate. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, and activity analyses were done in the full-analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and were not excluded from the study). Recruitment has completed and the study is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02734004. Between June 14, 2016, and May 2, 2017, 34 patients were enrolled and received both study drugs and were included in the safety analysis. 11 (32%) patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events, of which the most common were anaemia (four [12%]), neutropenia (three [9%]), and pancreatitis (two [6%]). Three (9%) patients discontinued due to adverse events and four (12%) patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. 24 (80%; 90% CI 64·3–90·9) of 30 patients eligible for activity analysis had disease control at 12 weeks. Combination of olaparib and durvalumab showed promising antitumour activity and safety similar to that previously observed in olaparib and durvalumab monotherapy studies. Further research in a randomised setting is needed to determine predictors of therapeutic benefit and whether addition of durvalumab improves long-term clinical outcomes compared with olaparib monotherapy. AstraZeneca.

Establishing alternatives to lifelong chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has been proposed to address chemotherapy resistance and cumulative toxicity. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown efficacy in this setting, and concurrent immune checkpoint blockade could offer synergistic tumour control. The aim of this study was to test the safety and antitumour activity of maintenance with PARP inhibition combined with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had a stable response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 1b/2 study of niraparib plus anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) or anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose cancer had not progressed after at least 16 weeks of platinum-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4) to niraparib 200 mg orally per day plus either nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks (later changed to 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks based on manufacturer update) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses. The primary endpoints were safety and progression-free survival at 6 months. Treatment groups were not compared for activity, which was assessed in each group against a clinically meaningful progression-free survival at 6 months of 44% (null hypothesis). Superiority of a treatment regimen could be declared if 6-month progression-free survival was 60%, and inferiority if 6-month progression-free survival was 27%. All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-treatment assessment of response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 were included in the efficacy population. The safety population consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03404960, and enrolment is completed and follow-up is ongoing. 91 patients were enrolled between Feb 7, 2018, and Oct 5, 2021 and were randomly assigned to niraparib plus nivolumab (n=46) or niraparib plus ipilimumab (n=45). Of these patients, 84 were evaluable for the progression-free survival endpoint (niraparib plus nivolumab=44; niraparib plus ipilimumab=40). Median follow-up was 23·0 months (IQR 15·0–31·5). 6-month progression-free survival was 20·6% (95% CI 8·3–32·9; p=0·0002 vs the null hypothesis of 44%) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group; and 59·6% (44·3–74·9; p=0·045) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group. Ten (22%) of 46 patients in the niraparib plus nivolumab group and 23 (50%) of 45 patients in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group had a grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the niraparib plus nivolumab group were hypertension (in four [8%] patients), anaemia (two [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (two [4%]) whereas in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group these were fatigue (in six [14%]), anaemia (five [11%]), and hypertension (four [9%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. The primary endpoint of 6-month progression-free survival was met in the niraparib plus ipilimumab maintenance group, whereas niraparib plus nivolumab yielded inferior progression-free survival. These findings highlight the potential for non-cytotoxic maintenance therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the Basser Center Young Leadership Council, The Konner Foundation, The Pearl and Philip Basser Innovation Research Award, the Anonymous Foundation, and the US National Institutes of Health.

Among patients with metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation, daily treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival than standard single-agent chemotherapy.

Among patients who had mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and were at high risk for disease progression, those who were assigned to a year of olaparib adjuvant therapy had 3-year invasive disease–free survival of 86%, as compared with 77% among those who were assigned to placebo. Few patients stopped olaparib owing to side effects.

Olaparib, a novel, orally active poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, induced synthetic lethality in BRCA-deficient cells. A maximum tolerated dose and initial signal of efficacy in BRCA-deficient ovarian cancers have been reported. We therefore assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of olaparib alone in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer. Women (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent, advanced breast cancer were assigned to two sequential cohorts in a phase 2 study undertaken in 16 centres in Australia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. The first cohort (n=27) was given continuous oral olaparib at the maximum tolerated dose (400 mg twice daily), and the second (n=27) was given a lower dose (100 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00494234. Patients had been given a median of three previous chemotherapy regimens (range 1–5 in cohort 1, and 2–4 in cohort 2). ORR was 11 (41%) of 27 patients (95% CI 25–59) in the cohort assigned to 400 mg twice daily, and six (22%) of 27 (11–41) in the cohort assigned to 100 mg twice daily. Toxicities were mainly at low grades. The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 400 mg twice daily were fatigue (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; grade 3 or 4, four [15%]), nausea (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; grade 3 or 4, four [15%]), vomiting (grade 1 or 2, three [11%]; grade 3 or 4, three [11%]), and anaemia (grade 1 or 2, one [4%]; grade 3 or 4, three [11%]). The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 100 mg twice daily were nausea (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; none grade 3 or 4) and fatigue (grade 1 or 2, seven [26%]; grade 3 or 4, one [4%]). The results of this study provide positive proof of concept for PARP inhibition in BRCA-deficient breast cancers and shows a favourable therapeutic index for a novel targeted treatment strategy in patients with tumours that have genetic loss of function of BRCA1-associated or BRCA2-associated DNA repair. Toxicity in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was similar to that reported previously in those without such mutations. AstraZeneca.

The results of this large study involving more than 64,500 U.S. women in the general population and 28 genes that have been previously implicated in conferring risk of breast cancer (when variant) have implications for the interpretation of results obtained by multigene panel testing.

The use of multigene panels for the assessment of cancer susceptibility is expanding rapidly in clinical practice. The appropriate management of individuals harbouring moderate-penetrance genetic variants in individuals referred for clinical testing is unclear. The authors of this Perspectives article provide a framework for clinical decision-making pending the development of a sufficient evidence base to document the clinical utility of the interventions for individuals with inherited moderate-penetrance gene mutations associated with an increased risk of cancer. The use of multigene panels for the assessment of cancer susceptibility is expanding rapidly in clinical practice, particularly in the USA, despite concerns regarding the uncertain clinical validity for some gene variants and the uncertain clinical utility of most multigene panels. So-called 'moderate-penetrance' gene mutations associated with cancer susceptibility are identified in approximately 2–5% of individuals referred for clinical testing; some of these mutations are potentially actionable. Nevertheless, the appropriate management of individuals harbouring such moderate-penetrance genetic variants is unclear. The cancer risks associated with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes are lower and different than those reported for high-penetrance gene mutations (such as mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 , and those associated with Lynch syndrome). The extrapolation of guidelines for the management of individuals with high-penetrance variants of cancer-susceptibility genes to the clinical care of patients with moderate-penetrance gene mutations could result in substantial harm. Thus, we provide a framework for clinical decision-making pending the development of a sufficient evidence base to document the clinical utility of the interventions for individuals with inherited moderate-penetrance gene mutations associated with an increased risk of cancer.

Complete loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 function is associated with sensitivity to DNA damaging agents. However, not all BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation-associated tumors respond. Herein we report analyses of 160 BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation-associated breast and ovarian tumors. Retention of the normal BRCA1 or BRCA2 allele (absence of locus-specific loss of heterozygosity (LOH)) is observed in 7% of BRCA1 ovarian, 16% of BRCA2 ovarian, 10% of BRCA1 breast, and 46% of BRCA2 breast tumors. These tumors have equivalent homologous recombination deficiency scores to sporadic tumors, significantly lower than scores in tumors with locus-specific LOH (ovarian, P  = 0.0004; breast P  < 0.0001, two-tailed Student’s t -test). Absence of locus-specific LOH is associated with decreased overall survival in ovarian cancer patients treated with platinum chemotherapy ( P  = 0.01, log-rank test). Locus-specific LOH may be a clinically useful biomarker to predict primary resistance to DNA damaging agents in patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Most tumours associated with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 loss of function mutations respond to DNA damaging agents, however, some do not. Herein, the authors identify that a subset of breast/ovarian tumors retain a normal allele, which is associated with decreased overall survival after DNA damage-inducing platinum chemotherapy.