J L Meisel1, D M Hyman2, K Garg3, Q Zhou4, F Dao5, M Bisogna5, J Gao6, N D Schultz6, R N Grisham7, M Phillips5, A Iasonos4, N D Kauff8, D A Levine9, R A Soslow10, D R Spriggs11. 1. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service. 2. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service; Developmental Therapeutics, Department of Medicine; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA. Electronic address: hymand@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Pathology. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 5. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery. 6. Computational Biology Program. 7. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA. 8. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service; Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery; Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA. 9. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA. 10. Department of Pathology; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA. 11. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service; Developmental Therapeutics, Department of Medicine; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: BRCA1 expression can be lost by a variety of mechanisms including germline or somatic mutation and promotor hypermethylation. Given the potential importance of BRCA1 loss as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, we sought to evaluate the utility of BRCA1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) in screening for BRCA1 loss by germline, somatic, and epigenetic mechanisms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had previously undergone germline BRCA1 testing were identified. Samples from each tumor were stained for BRCA1 and reviewed independently by two pathologists blinded to BRCA status. Tumors with abnormal BRCA1 IHC and wild-type germline testing underwent further evaluation for somatic BRCA1 mutations and promoter hypermethylation. McNemar's test was used to determine the association of BRCA1 IHC with germline BRCA1 mutations and BRCA1 loss through any mechanism. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS), and the log-rank test was used to assess differences between groups. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability between the two pathologists on BRCA IHC interpretation was very good (kappa coefficient 0.865, P = 0.16; McNemar's test). BRCA1 IHC was abnormal in 36% (48/135) of cases. When compared with germline BRCA1 status, BRCA1 IHC had a high negative predictive value (95.4%) but a low positive predictive value (PPV, 52.1%). When accounting for promoter hypermethylation and somatic mutations as alternative methods of BRCA1 loss, the PPV rose to 87.5%. Five-year OS rate was 49.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 26.3% to 69.3%] for patients with germline BRCA1 mutations, 50.4% (95% CI 27.5% to 69.5%) for germline wild-type BRCA1 and abnormal IHC, and 52.1% (95% CI 38.4% to 64.2%) for germline wild-type BRCA1 and normal IHC (P = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1 IHC interpretation was a highly reproducible and accurate modality for detecting germline, somatic, or epigenetic mechanisms of BRCA1 loss. These results support further development of BRCA1 IHC as a potential biomarker for BRCA1 loss in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.
BACKGROUND:BRCA1 expression can be lost by a variety of mechanisms including germline or somatic mutation and promotor hypermethylation. Given the potential importance of BRCA1 loss as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, we sought to evaluate the utility of BRCA1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) in screening for BRCA1 loss by germline, somatic, and epigenetic mechanisms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had previously undergone germline BRCA1 testing were identified. Samples from each tumor were stained for BRCA1 and reviewed independently by two pathologists blinded to BRCA status. Tumors with abnormal BRCA1 IHC and wild-type germline testing underwent further evaluation for somatic BRCA1 mutations and promoter hypermethylation. McNemar's test was used to determine the association of BRCA1 IHC with germline BRCA1 mutations and BRCA1 loss through any mechanism. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS), and the log-rank test was used to assess differences between groups. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability between the two pathologists on BRCA IHC interpretation was very good (kappa coefficient 0.865, P = 0.16; McNemar's test). BRCA1 IHC was abnormal in 36% (48/135) of cases. When compared with germline BRCA1 status, BRCA1 IHC had a high negative predictive value (95.4%) but a low positive predictive value (PPV, 52.1%). When accounting for promoter hypermethylation and somatic mutations as alternative methods of BRCA1 loss, the PPV rose to 87.5%. Five-year OS rate was 49.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 26.3% to 69.3%] for patients with germline BRCA1 mutations, 50.4% (95% CI 27.5% to 69.5%) for germline wild-type BRCA1 and abnormal IHC, and 52.1% (95% CI 38.4% to 64.2%) for germline wild-type BRCA1 and normal IHC (P = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS:BRCA1 IHC interpretation was a highly reproducible and accurate modality for detecting germline, somatic, or epigenetic mechanisms of BRCA1 loss. These results support further development of BRCA1 IHC as a potential biomarker for BRCA1 loss in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.
Authors: Kelly L Bolton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Cindy Goh; Siegal Sadetzki; Susan J Ramus; Beth Y Karlan; Diether Lambrechts; Evelyn Despierre; Daniel Barrowdale; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Douglas F Easton; Olga Sinilnikova; Javier Benítez; María J García; Susan Neuhausen; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; D Gareth Evans; Rosalind Eeles; Andrew K Godwin; Mary B Daly; Ava Kwong; Edmond S K Ma; Conxi Lázaro; Ignacio Blanco; Marco Montagna; Emma D'Andrea; Maria Ornella Nicoletto; Sharon E Johnatty; Susanne Krüger Kjær; Allan Jensen; Estrid Høgdall; Ellen L Goode; Brooke L Fridley; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai; Angela Chetrit; Flora Lubin; Galit Hirsh-Yechezkel; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Amanda E Toland; Leigha Senter; Martin E Gore; Charlie Gourley; Caroline O Michie; Honglin Song; Jonathan Tyrer; Alice S Whittemore; Valerie McGuire; Weiva Sieh; Ulf Kristoffersson; Håkan Olsson; Åke Borg; Douglas A Levine; Linda Steele; Mary S Beattie; Salina Chan; Robert L Nussbaum; Kirsten B Moysich; Jenny Gross; Ilana Cass; Christine Walsh; Andrew J Li; Ronald Leuchter; Ora Gordon; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Simon A Gayther; Stephen J Chanock; Antonis C Antoniou; Paul D P Pharoah Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M Esteller; J M Silva; G Dominguez; F Bonilla; X Matias-Guiu; E Lerma; E Bussaglia; J Prat; I C Harkes; E A Repasky; E Gabrielson; M Schutte; S B Baylin; J G Herman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-04-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David M Hyman; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Rachel N Grisham; Angela G Arnold; Mary F Phillips; Jasmine Bhatia; Douglas A Levine; Carol Aghajanian; Kenneth Offit; Richard R Barakat; David R Spriggs; Noah D Kauff Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M William Audeh; James Carmichael; Richard T Penson; Michael Friedlander; Bethan Powell; Katherine M Bell-McGuinn; Clare Scott; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Ana Oaknin; Niklas Loman; Karen Lu; Rita K Schmutzler; Ursula Matulonis; Mark Wickens; Andrew Tutt Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marc P Radosa; Norman Häfner; Oumar Camara; Herbert Diebolder; Anke Mothes; Harald Winzer; Lars Jansen; Matthias Dürst; Ingo B Runnebaum Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Romana Koppensteiner; Eleftherios P Samartzis; Aurelia Noske; Adriana von Teichman; Ioannis Dedes; Myriam Gwerder; Patrick Imesch; Kristian Ikenberg; Holger Moch; Daniel Fink; Manuel Stucki; Konstantin J Dedes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: E Sun Paik; Chi-Son Chang; Ye Lin Chae; So Young Oh; Sun-Ju Byeon; Chul Jung Kim; Yoo-Young Lee; Tae-Joong Kim; Jeong-Won Lee; Byoung-Gie Kim; Chel Hun Choi Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Elizabeth Santana Dos Santos; François Lallemand; Ambre Petitalot; Sandrine M Caputo; Etienne Rouleau Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 5.923