Franziska Geissler

Epigenetic alterations, including aberrant DNA methylation, are now recognized as bone fide hallmarks of cancer, which can contribute to cancer initiation, progression, therapy responses and therapy resistance. Methylation of gene promoters can have a range of impacts on cancer risk, clinical stratification and therapeutic outcomes. We provide several important examples of genes, which can be silenced or activated by promoter methylation and highlight their clinical implications. These include the mismatch DNA repair genes MLH1 and MSH2, homologous recombination DNA repair genes BRCA1 and RAD51C, the TERT oncogene and genes within the P15/P16/RB1/E2F tumour suppressor axis. We also discuss how these methylation changes might occur in the first place – whether in the context of the CpG island methylator phenotype or constitutional DNA methylation. The choice of assay used to measure methylation can have a significant impact on interpretation of methylation states, and some examples where this can influence clinical decision-making are presented. Aberrant DNA methylation patterns in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) are also showing great promise in the context of non-invasive cancer detection and monitoring using liquid biopsies; however, caution must be taken in interpreting these results in cases where constitutional methylation may be present. Thus, this review aims to provide researchers and clinicians with a comprehensive summary of this broad, but important subject, illustrating the potentials and pitfalls of assessing aberrant DNA methylation in cancer.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is treated as a homogenous disease but emerging evidence suggests that the diagnosis of GDM possibly comprises different metabolic entities. In this study, we aimed to assess early pregnancy characteristics of gestational diabetes mellitus entities classified according to the presence of fasting and/or post-load hyperglycaemia in the diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test performed at mid-gestation. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 1087 pregnant women received a broad risk evaluation and laboratory examination at early gestation and were later classified as normal glucose tolerant (NGT), as having isolated fasting hyperglycaemia (GDM-IFH), isolated post-load hyperglycaemia (GDM-IPH) or combined hyperglycaemia (GDM-CH) according to oral glucose tolerance test results. Participants were followed up until delivery to assess data on pharmacotherapy and pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: Women affected by elevated fasting and post-load glucose concentrations (GDM-CH) showed adverse metabolic profiles already at beginning of pregnancy including a higher degree of insulin resistance as compared to women with normal glucose tolerance and those with isolated defects (especially GDM-IPH). The GDM-IPH subgroup had lower body mass index at early gestation and required glucose-lowering medications less often (28.9%) as compared to GDM-IFH (47.8%, P = .019) and GDM-CH (54.5%, P = .005). No differences were observed in pregnancy outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Women with fasting hyperglycaemia, especially those with combined hyperglycaemia, showed an unfavourable metabolic phenotype already at early gestation. Therefore, categorization based on abnormal oral glucose tolerance test values provides a practicable basis for clinical risk stratification.

Background: We aim to evaluate the impact of prepregnancy overweight on treatment modalities of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). We assessed the association of increased pregravid Body Mass Index (BMI) with dosing of basal and rapid acting insulin as well as pregnancy outcome. Methods: We included 509 gestational diabetic women (normal weight: 200, overweight: 157, obese: 152), attending the pregnancy outpatient clinic at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, in this retrospective study. We used a prospectively compiled database to assess patient characteristics, treatment approaches - particularly maximum doses of basal and rapid acting insulin or metformin - and pregnancy outcome. Results: Increased BMI was associated with the need of glucose lowering medication (odds ratio (OR): 1.08 for the increase of 1 kg/m² BMI, 95%CI 1.05-1.11, p<0.001). Mothers with pregestational obesity received the highest amount of insulin. Metformin was more often used in patients with obesity who also required higher daily doses. Maternal BMI was associated with increased risk of cesarean section (OR 1.04, 95%CI 1.01-1.07, p<0.001) and delivering large for gestational age offspring (OR 1.09, 95%CI 1.04-1.13, p<0.001). Birthweight percentiles were highest in patients with obesity who required glucose lowering therapy. Conclusions: Treatment modalities and outcome in GDM pregnancies are closely related to the extent of maternal BMI. Patients with obesity required glucose lowering medication more often and were at higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. It is crucial to further explore the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms to optimize clinical management and individual treatment approaches.

High-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOCs) most commonly arise from the fimbrial end of the fallopian tube and harbor TP53 gene mutations. In contrast, low-grade serous ovarian cancers (LGSOCs) appear to have different pathological, epidemiological, and clinical features and should be seen as a distinct serous epithelial ovarian cancer subtype. Our current understanding of LGSOC is limited, and treatment has generally been derived from the more common HGSOCs due to a lack of separate trial data. LGSOCs are characterized by slow tumor growth and are assumed to develop from serous borderline ovarian tumors as precursors. These cancers are often estrogen-receptor positive and show an activated mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway together with KRAS and BRAF mutations and, rarely, TP53 mutations. These characteristics are now commonly used to guide therapeutical decision making and, consequently, a substantial part of treatment consists of maintenance with endocrine treatment, thus balancing disease stabilization and mild toxicity. Additionally, new trials are ongoing that examine the role of targeted therapies such as MEK inhibitors in combination with endocrine treatments. The purpose of this work is to summarize current knowledge and present ongoing trial efforts for LGSOCs.

PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy has transformed outcomes for patients with homologous recombination DNA repair (HRR) deficient ovarian cancers, for example those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene defects. Unfortunately, PARPi resistance is common. Multiple resistance mechanisms have been described, including secondary mutations that restore the HR gene reading frame. BRCA1 splice isoforms △11 and △11q can contribute to PARPi resistance by splicing out the mutation-containing exon, producing truncated, partially functional proteins. However, the clinical impacts and underlying drivers of BRCA1 exon skipping are not fully understood.We analyzed nine ovarian and breast cancer patient derived xenografts (PDX) with BRCA1 exon 11 frameshift mutations for exon skipping and therapy response, including a matched PDX pair derived from a patient pre- and post-chemotherapy/PARPi. BRCA1 exon 11 skipping was elevated in PARPi resistant PDX tumors. Two independent PDX models acquired secondary BRCA1 splice site mutations (SSMs) that drive exon skipping, confirmed using qRT-PCR, RNA sequencing, immunoblotting and minigene modelling. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated disruption of splicing functionally validated exon skipping as a mechanism of PARPi resistance. SSMs were also enriched in post-PARPi ovarian cancer patient cohorts from the ARIEL2 and ARIEL4 clinical trials.Few PARPi resistance mechanisms have been confirmed in the clinical setting. While secondary/reversion mutations typically restore a gene's reading frame, we have identified secondary mutations in patient cohorts that hijack splice sites to enhance mutation-containing exon skipping, resulting in the overexpression of BRCA1 hypomorphs, which in turn promote PARPi resistance. Thus, BRCA1 SSMs can and should be clinically monitored, along with frame-restoring secondary mutations.