Long-term outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve, triple-negative breast cancer patients according to BRCA1 status.

BRCA1 status Chemotherapy-naïve Long-term outcomes Risk classification Triple-negative breast cancer Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes

Journal

BMC medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Titre abrégé: BMC Med

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 Jan 2024

Historique:

received: 21 07 2023

accepted: 15 12 2023

medline: 9 1 2024

pubmed: 9 1 2024

entrez: 8 1 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

Due to the abundant usage of chemotherapy in young triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, the unbiased prognostic value of BRCA1-related biomarkers in this population remains unclear. In addition, whether BRCA1-related biomarkers modify the well-established prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is unknown. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients according to BRCA1 status, taking sTILs into account. We included 485 Dutch women diagnosed with node-negative TNBC under age 40 between 1989 and 2000. During this period, these women were considered low-risk and did not receive chemotherapy. BRCA1 status, including pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCA1m), somatic BRCA1 mutation (sBRCA1m), and tumor BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1-PM), was assessed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. sTILs were assessed according to the international guideline. Patients' outcomes were compared using Cox regression and competing risk models. Among the 399 patients with BRCA1 status, 26.3% had a gBRCA1m, 5.3% had a sBRCA1m, 36.6% had tumor BRCA1-PM, and 31.8% had BRCA1-non-altered tumors. Compared to BRCA1-non-alteration, gBRCA1m was associated with worse overall survival (OS) from the fourth year after diagnosis (adjusted HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.18-3.75), and this association attenuated after adjustment for second primary tumors. Every 10% sTIL increment was associated with 16% higher OS (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) in gBRCA1m, sBRCA1m, or BRCA1-non-altered patients and 31% higher OS in tumor BRCA1-PM patients. Among the 66 patients with tumor BRCA1-PM and ≥ 50% sTILs, we observed excellent 15-year OS (97.0%; 95% CI, 92.9-100%). Conversely, among the 61 patients with gBRCA1m and < 50% sTILs, we observed poor 15-year OS (50.8%; 95% CI, 39.7-65.0%). Furthermore, gBRCA1m was associated with higher (adjusted subdistribution HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.29-7.13) and tumor BRCA1-PM with lower (adjusted subdistribution HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95) incidence of second primary tumors, compared to BRCA1-non-alteration. Although both gBRCA1m and tumor BRCA1-PM alter BRCA1 gene transcription, they are associated with different outcomes in young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients. By combining sTILs and BRCA1 status for risk classification, we were able to identify potential subgroups in this population to intensify and optimize adjuvant treatment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS METHODS

We included 485 Dutch women diagnosed with node-negative TNBC under age 40 between 1989 and 2000. During this period, these women were considered low-risk and did not receive chemotherapy. BRCA1 status, including pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCA1m), somatic BRCA1 mutation (sBRCA1m), and tumor BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1-PM), was assessed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. sTILs were assessed according to the international guideline. Patients' outcomes were compared using Cox regression and competing risk models.

RESULTS RESULTS

Among the 399 patients with BRCA1 status, 26.3% had a gBRCA1m, 5.3% had a sBRCA1m, 36.6% had tumor BRCA1-PM, and 31.8% had BRCA1-non-altered tumors. Compared to BRCA1-non-alteration, gBRCA1m was associated with worse overall survival (OS) from the fourth year after diagnosis (adjusted HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.18-3.75), and this association attenuated after adjustment for second primary tumors. Every 10% sTIL increment was associated with 16% higher OS (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) in gBRCA1m, sBRCA1m, or BRCA1-non-altered patients and 31% higher OS in tumor BRCA1-PM patients. Among the 66 patients with tumor BRCA1-PM and ≥ 50% sTILs, we observed excellent 15-year OS (97.0%; 95% CI, 92.9-100%). Conversely, among the 61 patients with gBRCA1m and < 50% sTILs, we observed poor 15-year OS (50.8%; 95% CI, 39.7-65.0%). Furthermore, gBRCA1m was associated with higher (adjusted subdistribution HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.29-7.13) and tumor BRCA1-PM with lower (adjusted subdistribution HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95) incidence of second primary tumors, compared to BRCA1-non-alteration.

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

Although both gBRCA1m and tumor BRCA1-PM alter BRCA1 gene transcription, they are associated with different outcomes in young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients. By combining sTILs and BRCA1 status for risk classification, we were able to identify potential subgroups in this population to intensify and optimize adjuvant treatment.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03233-7 PMID: 38191387

pubmed: 38191387

doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03233-7

pii: 10.1186/s12916-023-03233-7

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

Subventions

Organisme : ZonMw

ID : Project number 836021019

Pays : Netherlands

Informations de copyright

Références

Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg A, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(5):1117–30.

pubmed: 12677558 pmcid: 1180265 doi: 10.1086/375033

Fostira F, Tsitlaidou M, Papadimitriou C, Pertesi M, Timotheadou E, Stavropoulou AV, Glentis S, Bournakis E, Bobos M, Pectasides D, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among 403 women with triple-negative breast cancer: implications for genetic screening selection criteria: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(1):353–62.

pubmed: 22434525 doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2021-9

Sharma P, Klemp JR, Kimler BF, Mahnken JD, Geier LJ, Khan QJ, Elia M, Connor CS, McGinness MK, Mammen JM, et al. Germline BRCA mutation evaluation in a prospective triple-negative breast cancer registry: implications for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome testing. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(3):707–14.

pubmed: 24807107 pmcid: 4171847 doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2980-0

Couch FJ, Hart SN, Sharma P, Toland AE, Wang X, Miron P, Olson JE, Godwin AK, Pankratz VS, Olswold C, et al. Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(4):304–11.

pubmed: 25452441 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.1414

Hahnen E, Lederer B, Hauke J, Loibl S, Krober S, Schneeweiss A, Denkert C, Fasching PA, Blohmer JU, Jackisch C, et al. Germline mutation status, pathological complete response, and disease-free survival in triple-negative breast cancer: secondary analysis of the GeparSixto Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1378–85.

pubmed: 28715532 pmcid: 5710508 doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1007

Copson ER, Maishman TC, Tapper WJ, Cutress RI, Greville-Heygate S, Altman DG, Eccles B, Gerty S, Durcan LT, Jones L, et al. Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(2):169–80.

pubmed: 29337092 pmcid: 5805863 doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30891-4

Breast Cancer Association Consortium, Dorling L, Carvalho S, Allen J, Gonzalez-Neira A, Luccarini C, Wahlstrom C, Pooley KA, Parsons MT, Fortuno C, et al. Breast cancer risk genes - association analysis in more than 113,000 women. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):428–39.

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1913948

Breast Cancer Association Consortium, Mavaddat N, Dorling L, Carvalho S, Allen J, Gonzalez-Neira A, Keeman R, Bolla MK, Dennis J, Wang Q, et al. Pathology of tumors associated with pathogenic germline variants in 9 breast cancer susceptibility genes. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(3):e216744.

pmcid: 8796069 doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6744

Khanna KK, Jackson SP. DNA double-strand breaks: signaling, repair and the cancer connection. Nat Genet. 2001;27(3):247–54.

pubmed: 11242102 doi: 10.1038/85798

van Gent DC, Hoeijmakers JHJ, Kanaar R. Chromosomal stability and the DNA double-stranded break connection. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(3):196–206.

pubmed: 11256071 doi: 10.1038/35056049

Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Hallmarks of ‘BRCAness’ in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(10):814–9.

pubmed: 15510162 doi: 10.1038/nrc1457

Joosse SA, van Beers EH, Tielen IH, Horlings H, Peterse JL, Hoogerbrugge N, Ligtenberg MJ, Wessels LF, Axwijk P, Verhoef S, et al. Prediction of BRCA1-association in hereditary non-BRCA1/2 breast carcinomas with array-CGH. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116(3):479–89.

pubmed: 18704682 doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0117-z

Loi S. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, breast cancer subtypes and therapeutic efficacy. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2(7):e24720.

pubmed: 24073365 pmcid: 3782009 doi: 10.4161/onci.24720

Loi S, Drubay D, Adams S, Pruneri G, Francis PA, Lacroix-Triki M, Joensuu H, Dieci MV, Badve S, Demaria S, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis: a pooled individual patient analysis of early-stage triple-negative breast cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(7):559–69.

pubmed: 30650045 pmcid: 7010425 doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01010

Park JH, Jonas SF, Bataillon G, Criscitiello C, Salgado R, Loi S, Viale G, Lee HJ, Dieci MV, Kim SB, et al. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(12):1941–9.

pubmed: 31566659 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz395

de Jong VMT, Wang Y, Ter Hoeve ND, Opdam M, Stathonikos N, Jozwiak K, Hauptmann M, Cornelissen S, Vreuls W, Rosenberg EH, et al. Prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in young, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer patients who did not receive (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(21):2361–74.

pubmed: 35353548 pmcid: 9287283 doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01536

Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S, Goldstein L, Perez EA, Shulman LN, Martino S, Wang M, Jones VE, Saphner TJ, et al. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials: ECOG 2197 and ECOG 1199. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):2959–66.

pubmed: 25071121 pmcid: 4162494 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.55.0491

Solinas C, Marcoux D, Garaud S, Vitoria JR, Van den Eynden G, de Wind A, De Silva P, Boisson A, Craciun L, Larsimont D, et al. BRCA gene mutations do not shape the extent and organization of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in triple negative breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2019;450:88–97.

pubmed: 30797818 doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.02.027

Telli ML, Chu C, Badve SS, Vinayak S, Silver DP, Isakoff SJ, Kaklamani V, Gradishar W, Stearns V, Connolly RM, et al. Association of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA1/2 status in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(11):2704–10.

pubmed: 31796517 doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0664

Grandal B, Evrevin C, Laas E, Jardin I, Rozette S, Laot L, Dumas E, Coussy F, Pierga JY, Brain E, et al. Impact of BRCA mutation status on tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), response to treatment, and prognosis in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(12):3681.

pubmed: 33302444 doi: 10.3390/cancers12123681

Nolan E, Savas P, Policheni AN, Darcy PK, Vaillant F, Mintoff CP, Dushyanthen S, Mansour M, Pang JB, Fox SB, et al. Combined immune checkpoint blockade as a therapeutic strategy for BRCA1-mutated breast cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(393):eaal4922.

pubmed: 28592566 pmcid: 5822709 doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal4922

Lips EH, Mulder L, Oonk A, van der Kolk LE, Hogervorst FB, Imholz AL, Wesseling J, Rodenhuis S, Nederlof PM. Triple-negative breast cancer: BRCAness and concordance of clinical features with BRCA1-mutation carriers. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(10):2172–7.

pubmed: 23558900 pmcid: 3670471 doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.144

Goffin JR, Chappuis PO, Begin LR, Wong N, Brunet JS, Hamel N, Paradis AJ, Boyd J, Foulkes WD. Impact of germline BRCA1 mutations and overexpression of p53 on prognosis and response to treatment following breast carcinoma: 10-year follow up data. Cancer. 2003;97(3):527–36.

pubmed: 12548593 doi: 10.1002/cncr.11080

Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Gorski B, Domagala P, Cybulski C, Oszurek O, Szwiec M, Gugala K, Stawicka M, et al. Ten-year survival in patients with BRCA1-negative and BRCA1-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(26):3191–6.

pubmed: 23940229 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3571

Tung N, Gaughan E, Hacker MR, Lee LJ, Alexander B, Poles E, Schnitt SJ, Garber JE. Outcome of triple negative breast cancer: comparison of sporadic and BRCA1-associated cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(1):175–82.

pubmed: 24839033 doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2995-6

Sharma P, Barlow WE, Godwin AK, Pathak H, Isakova K, Williams D, Timms KM, Hartman AR, Wenstrup RJ, Linden HM, et al. Impact of homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers on outcomes in patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated with adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (SWOG S9313). Ann Oncol. 2018;29(3):654–60.

pubmed: 29293876 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx821

Lips EH, Benard-Slagter A, Opdam M, Scheerman CE, Wesseling J, Hogervorst FBL, Linn SC, Savola S, Nederlof PM. BRCAness digitalMLPA profiling predicts benefit of intensified platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative and luminal-type breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2020;22(1):79.

pubmed: 32711554 pmcid: 7382055 doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01313-7

Wang Y, van den Broek AJ, Schmidt MK. Letter to the editor regarding: ‘association between BRCA mutational status and survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.’ Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;188(3):821–3.

Dackus GM, Ter Hoeve ND, Opdam M, Vreuls W, Varga Z, Koop E, Willems SM, Van Deurzen CH, Groen EJ, Cordoba A, et al. Long-term prognosis of young breast cancer patients (≤40 years) who did not receive adjuvant systemic treatment: protocol for the PARADIGM initiative cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e017842.

pubmed: 29138205 pmcid: 5695414 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017842

Consensus conference. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. JAMA. 1985;254(24):3461–3.

doi: 10.1001/jama.1985.03360240073038

Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S, Sirtaine N, Klauschen F, Pruneri G, Wienert S, Van den Eynden G, Baehner FL, Penault-Llorca F, et al. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an international TILs working group 2014. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):259–71.

pubmed: 25214542 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu450

Moelans CB, Atanesyan L, Savola SP, van Diest PJ. Methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA). Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1708:537–49.

pubmed: 29224162 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7481-8_27

Petrij-Bosch A, Peelen T, van Vliet M, van Eijk R, Olmer R, Drusedau M, Hogervorst FB, Hageman S, Arts PJ, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. BRCA1 genomic deletions are major founder mutations in Dutch breast cancer patients. Nat Genet. 1997;17(3):341–5.

pubmed: 9354803 doi: 10.1038/ng1197-341

Schouten PC, Grigoriadis A, Kuilman T, Mirza H, Watkins JA, Cooke SA, van Dyk E, Severson TM, Rueda OM, Hoogstraat M, et al. Robust BRCA1-like classification of copy number profiles of samples repeated across different datasets and platforms. Mol Oncol. 2015;9(7):1274–86.

pubmed: 25825120 pmcid: 5528812 doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2015.03.002

de Boo LW, Jozwiak K, Joensuu H, Lindman H, Lauttia S, Opdam M, van Steenis C, Brugman W, Kluin RJC, Schouten PC, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine-containing chemotherapy benefit and homologous recombination deficiency in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2022;126(10):1401–9.

pubmed: 35124703 pmcid: 9090783 doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01711-y

Vollebergh MA, Lips EH, Nederlof PM, Wessels LF, Schmidt MK, van Beers EH, Cornelissen S, Holtkamp M, Froklage FE, de Vries EG, et al. An aCGH classifier derived from BRCA1-mutated breast cancer and benefit of high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1561–70.

pubmed: 21135055 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq624

Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, Batut P, Chaisson M, Gingeras TR. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(1):15–21.

pubmed: 23104886 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635

Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550.

pubmed: 25516281 pmcid: 4302049 doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8

Lindor NM, Guidugli L, Wang X, Vallee MP, Monteiro AN, Tavtigian S, Goldgar DE, Couch FJ. A review of a multifactorial probability-based model for classification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Hum Mutat. 2012;33(1):8–21.

pubmed: 21990134 doi: 10.1002/humu.21627

Lee EH, Park SK, Park B, Kim SW, Lee MH, Ahn SH, Son BH, Yoo KY, Kang D, Group KR, et al. Effect of BRCA1/2 mutation on short-term and long-term breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;122(1):11–25.

pubmed: 20376556 doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0859-2

van den Broek AJ, Schmidt MK, van’t Veer LJ, Tollenaar RA, van Leeuwen FE. Worse breast cancer prognosis of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: what’s the evidence? A systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120189.

pubmed: 25816289 pmcid: 4376645 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120189

Zhong Q, Peng HL, Zhao X, Zhang L, Hwang WT. Effects of BRCA1- and BRCA2-related mutations on ovarian and breast cancer survival: a meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(1):211–20.

pubmed: 25348513 doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1816

Templeton AJ, Gonzalez LD, Vera-Badillo FE, Tibau A, Goldstein R, Seruga B, Srikanthan A, Pandiella A, Amir E, Ocana A. Interaction between hormonal receptor status, age and survival in patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations: a systematic review and meta-regression. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0154789.

pubmed: 27149669 pmcid: 4858163 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154789

Zhu Y, Wu J, Zhang C, Sun S, Zhang J, Liu W, Huang J, Zhang Z. BRCA mutations and survival in breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(43):70113–27.

pubmed: 27659521 pmcid: 5342539 doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12158

Baretta Z, Mocellin S, Goldin E, Olopade OI, Huo D. Effect of BRCA germline mutations on breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(40):e4975.

pubmed: 27749552 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004975

Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, Robson M, Kutler D, Auerbach AD. A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(7):1229–35.

pubmed: 15305188 pmcid: 2410013 doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602102

Latouche A, Allignol A, Beyersmann J, Labopin M, Fine JP. A competing risks analysis should report results on all cause-specific hazards and cumulative incidence functions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(6):648–53.

pubmed: 23415868 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.017

R Development Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.

Robson ME, Chappuis PO, Satagopan J, Wong N, Boyd J, Goffin JR, Hudis C, Roberge D, Norton L, Begin LR, et al. A combined analysis of outcome following breast cancer: differences in survival based on BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and administration of adjuvant treatment. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6(1):R8–17.

pubmed: 14680495 doi: 10.1186/bcr658

Schmidt MK, van den Broek AJ, Tollenaar RA, Smit VT, Westenend PJ, Brinkhuis M, Oosterhuis WJ, Wesseling J, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Jobsen JJ et al: Breast cancer survival of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers in a hospital-based cohort of young women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017;109(8): https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw329(8)

Yadav S, Ladkany R, Yadav D, Alhalabi O, Khaddam S, Isaac D, Cardenas PY, Zakalik D. Impact of BRCA mutation status on survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e1229–35.

pubmed: 29402697 doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2017.12.014

Pogoda K, Niwinska A, Sarnowska E, Nowakowska D, Jagiello-Gruszfeld A, Siedlecki J, Nowecki Z. Effects of BRCA germline mutations on triple-negative breast cancer prognosis. J Oncol. 2020;2020:8545643.

pubmed: 32322271 pmcid: 7165358 doi: 10.1155/2020/8545643

Bayraktar S, Gutierrez-Barrera AM, Liu D, Tasbas T, Akar U, Litton JK, Lin E, Albarracin CT, Meric-Bernstam F, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Outcome of triple-negative breast cancer in patients with or without deleterious BRCA mutations. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(1):145–53.

pubmed: 21830012 pmcid: 4334122 doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1711-z

Maksimenko J, Irmejs A, Nakazawa-Miklasevica M, Melbarde-Gorkusa I, Trofimovics G, Gardovskis J, Miklasevics E. Prognostic role of BRCA1 mutation in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2014;7(1):278–84.

pubmed: 24348864 doi: 10.3892/ol.2013.1684

Yadav S, Boddicker NJ, Na J, Polley EC, Hu C, Hart SN, Gnanaolivu RD, Larson N, Holtegaard S, Huang H, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk among carriers of germline pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(9):1703–13.

pubmed: 36623243 doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01239

Hawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, Janz NK, Hamilton A, Graff JJ, Katz SJ. Social and clinical determinants of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(6):582–9.

pubmed: 24849045 pmcid: 4703398 doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5689

Akdeniz D, van Barele M, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Steyerberg EW, Hauptmann M, Investigators H, van de Beek I, van Engelen K, Wevers MR, Gomez Garcia EB, et al. Effects of chemotherapy on contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a nationwide cohort study. Breast. 2022;61:98–107.

pubmed: 34929424 doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.12.007

Kramer I, Schaapveld M, Oldenburg HSA, Sonke GS, McCool D, van Leeuwen FE, Van de Vijver KK, Russell NS, Linn SC, Siesling S, et al. The influence of adjuvant systemic regimens on contralateral breast cancer risk and receptor subtype. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(7):709–18.

pubmed: 30698719 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz010

Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687–717.

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0

Schmidt MK, Kelly JE, Bredart A, Cameron DA, de Boniface J, Easton DF, Offersen BV, Poulakaki F, Rubio IT, Sardanelli F, et al. EBCC-13 manifesto: balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2023;181:79–91.

pubmed: 36641897 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.11.036

Sharma P, Stecklein SR, Kimler BF, Sethi G, Petroff BK, Phillips TA, Tawfik OW, Godwin AK, Jensen RA. The prognostic value of BRCA1 promoter methylation in early stage triple negative breast cancer. J Cancer Ther Res. 2014;3(2):1–11.

pubmed: 25177489 pmcid: 4147783

Xu Y, Diao L, Chen Y, Liu Y, Wang C, Ouyang T, Li J, Wang T, Fan Z, Fan T, et al. Promoter methylation of BRCA1 in triple-negative breast cancer predicts sensitivity to adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):1498–505.

pubmed: 23406733 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt011

Yamashita N, Tokunaga E, Kitao H, Hitchins M, Inoue Y, Tanaka K, Hisamatsu Y, Taketani K, Akiyoshi S, Okada S, et al. Epigenetic inactivation of BRCA1 through promoter hypermethylation and its clinical importance in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15(6):498–504.

pubmed: 26195437 doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.06.009

Jacot W, Lopez-Crapez E, Mollevi C, Boissiere-Michot F, Simony-Lafontaine J, Ho-Pun-Cheung A, Chartron E, Theillet C, Lemoine A, Saffroy R, et al. BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation is associated with good prognosis and chemosensitivity in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(4):828.

pubmed: 32235500 doi: 10.3390/cancers12040828

Ignatov T, Poehlmann A, Ignatov A, Schinlauer A, Costa SD, Roessner A, Kalinski T, Bischoff J. BRCA1 promoter methylation is a marker of better response to anthracycline-based therapy in sporadic TNBC. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(2):205–12.

pubmed: 24026861 doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2693-9

Vos S, van Diest PJ, Moelans CB. A systematic review on the frequency of BRCA promoter methylation in breast and ovarian carcinomas of BRCA germline mutation carriers: mutually exclusive, or not? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;127:29–41.

pubmed: 29891109 doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.05.008

Guo T, Ren Y, Wang B, Huang Y, Jia S, Tang W, Luo Y. Promoter methylation of BRCA1 is associated with estrogen, progesterone and human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative tumors and the prognosis of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015;3(6):1353–60.

pubmed: 26807247 pmcid: 4665309 doi: 10.3892/mco.2015.620

Nederlof I, Horlings HM, Curtis C, Kok M. A high-dimensional window into the micro-environment of triple negative breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(2):316.

pubmed: 33467084 doi: 10.3390/cancers13020316

Stefansson OA, Hilmarsdottir H, Olafsdottir K, Tryggvadottir L, Sverrisdottir A, Johannsson OT, Jonasson JG, Eyfjord JE, Sigurdsson S. BRCA1 promoter methylation status in 1031 primary breast cancers predicts favorable outcomes following chemotherapy. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019;4(2):pkz100.

pubmed: 32175521 pmcid: 7061679 doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz100

Tian T, Shan L, Yang W, Zhou X, Shui R. Evaluation of the BRCAness phenotype and its correlations with clinicopathological features in triple-negative breast cancers. Hum Pathol. 2019;84:231–8.

pubmed: 30339969 doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.10.004

Glodzik D, Bosch A, Hartman J, Aine M, Vallon-Christersson J, Reutersward C, Karlsson A, Mitra S, Nimeus E, Holm K, et al. Comprehensive molecular comparison of BRCA1 hypermethylated and BRCA1 mutated triple negative breast cancers. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3747.

pubmed: 32719340 pmcid: 7385112 doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17537-2

Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Timms KM, Liu S, Chen H, Litton JK, Potter J, Lanchbury JS, Stemke-Hale K, Hennessy BT, Arun BK, et al. Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(5):1082–9.

pubmed: 21233401 pmcid: 3048924 doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2560

Loibl S, Weber KE, Timms KM, Elkin EP, Hahnen E, Fasching PA, Lederer B, Denkert C, Schneeweiss A, Braun S, et al. Survival analysis of carboplatin added to an anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HRD score as predictor of response-final results from GeparSixto. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(12):2341–7.

pubmed: 30335131 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy460

Meijer TG, Nguyen L, Van Hoeck A, Sieuwerts AM, Verkaik NS, Ladan MM, Ruigrok-Ritstier K, van Deurzen CHM, van de Werken HJG, Lips EH, et al. Functional RECAP (REpair CAPacity) assay identifies homologous recombination deficiency undetected by DNA-based BRCAness tests. Oncogene. 2022;41(26):3498–506.

pubmed: 35662281 pmcid: 9232391 doi: 10.1038/s41388-022-02363-1

Maxwell KN, Wubbenhorst B, Wenz BM, De Sloover D, Pluta J, Emery L, Barrett A, Kraya AA, Anastopoulos IN, Yu S, et al. BRCA locus-specific loss of heterozygosity in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):319.

pubmed: 28831036 pmcid: 5567274 doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00388-9

Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, Zackrisson S, Senkus E, Committee EG. Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(10):1674.

pubmed: 31236598 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz189

Shimelis H, LaDuca H, Hu C, Hart SN, Na J, Thomas A, Akinhanmi M, Moore RM, Brauch H, Cox A, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer risk genes identified by multigene hereditary cancer panel testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(8):855–62.

pubmed: 30099541 pmcid: 6093350 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy106