Validation of the BOADICEA model in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

BACKGROUND: No validation has been conducted for the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model specifically in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers to date. Here, we evaluated the performance of BOADICEA in predicting 5-year breast cancer risks in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 PV carriers ascertained through clinical genetic centres. METHODS: We evaluated the model calibration and discriminatory ability in the prospective TRANsIBCCS cohort study comprising 1614 BRCA1 and 1365 BRCA2 PV carriers (209 incident cases). Study participants had lifestyle, reproductive, hormonal, anthropometric risk factor information, a polygenic risk score based on 313 SNPs and family history information. RESULTS: The full multifactorial model considering family history together with all other risk factors was well calibrated overall (E/O=1.07, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24) and in quintiles of predicted risk. Discrimination was maximised when all risk factors were considered (Harrell's C-index=0.70, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.74; area under the curve=0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). The model performance was similar when evaluated separately in BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV carriers. The full model identified 5.8%, 12.9% and 24.0% of BRCA1/2 PV carriers with 5-year breast cancer risks of <1.65%, <3% and <5%, respectively, risk thresholds commonly used for different management and risk-reduction options. CONCLUSION: BOADICEA may be used to aid personalised cancer risk management and decision-making for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers. It is implemented in the free-access CanRisk tool (https://www.canrisk.org/).

Evaluation of European-based polygenic risk score for breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish women in Israel.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk score (PRS), calculated based on genome-wide association studies (GWASs), can improve breast cancer (BC) risk assessment. To date, most BC GWASs have been performed in individuals of European (EUR) ancestry, and the generalisation of EUR-based PRS to other populations is a major challenge. In this study, we examined the performance of EUR-based BC PRS models in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women. METHODS: We generated PRSs based on data on EUR women from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). We tested the performance of the PRSs in a cohort of 2161 AJ women from Israel (1437 cases and 724 controls) from BCAC (BCAC cohort from Israel (BCAC-IL)). In addition, we tested the performance of these EUR-based BC PRSs, as well as the established 313-SNP EUR BC PRS, in an independent cohort of 181 AJ women from Hadassah Medical Center (HMC) in Israel. RESULTS: In the BCAC-IL cohort, the highest OR per 1 SD was 1.56 (±0.09). The OR for AJ women at the top 10% of the PRS distribution compared with the middle quintile was 2.10 (±0.24). In the HMC cohort, the OR per 1 SD of the EUR-based PRS that performed best in the BCAC-IL cohort was 1.58±0.27. The OR per 1 SD of the commonly used 313-SNP BC PRS was 1.64 (±0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Extant EUR GWAS data can be used for generating PRSs that identify AJ women with markedly elevated risk of BC and therefore hold promise for improving BC risk assessment in AJ women.

The BRCA1 c. 5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) intermediate risk variant: breast and ovarian cancer risk estimation and recommendations for clinical management from the ENIGMA consortium.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that the BRCA1 variant c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) was associated with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). This study aimed to assess these cancer risks for R1699Q carriers in a larger cohort, including follow-up of previously studied families, to further define cancer risks and to propose adjusted clinical management of female BRCA1*R1699Q carriers. METHODS: Data were collected from 129 BRCA1*R1699Q families ascertained internationally by ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium members. A modified segregation analysis was used to calculate BC and OC risks. Relative risks were calculated under both monogenic model and major gene plus polygenic model assumptions. RESULTS: In this cohort the cumulative risk of BC and OC by age 70 years was 20% and 6%, respectively. The relative risk for developing cancer was higher when using a model that included the effects of both the R1699Q variant and a residual polygenic component compared with monogenic model (for BC 3.67 vs 2.83, and for OC 6.41 vs 5.83). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that BRCA1*R1699Q confers an intermediate risk for BC and OC. Breast surveillance for female carriers based on mammogram annually from age 40 is advised. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be considered based on family history.

Breast and ovarian cancer risks in a large series of clinically ascertained families with a high proportion of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Dutch founder mutations.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations confer increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer, but risks have been found to vary across studies and populations. METHODS: We ascertained pedigree data of 582 BRCA1 and 176 BRCA2 families and studied the variation in breast and ovarian cancer risks using a modified segregation analysis model. RESULTS: The average cumulative breast cancer risk by age 70 years was estimated to be 45% (95% CI 36 to 52%) for BRCA1 and 27% (95% CI 14 to 38%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The corresponding cumulative risks for ovarian cancer were 31% (95% CI 17 to 43%) for BRCA1 and 6% (95% CI 2 to 11%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. In BRCA1 families, breast cancer relative risk (RR) increased with more recent birth cohort (p heterogeneity = 0.0006) and stronger family histories of breast cancer (p heterogeneity < 0.001). For BRCA1, our data suggest a significant association between the location of the mutation and the ratio of breast to ovarian cancer (p<0.001). By contrast, in BRCA2 families, no evidence was found for risk heterogeneity by birth cohort, family history or mutation location. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1 mutation carriers conferred lower overall breast and ovarian cancer risks than reported so far, while the estimates of BRCA2 mutations were among the lowest. The low estimates for BRCA1 might be due to older birth cohorts, a moderate family history, or founder mutations located within specific regions of the gene. These results are important for a more accurate counselling of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

The counselees' self-reported request for psychological help in genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: not only psychopathology matters.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that counselees do not experience psychopathological levels of distress after DNA test result disclosure. However, it has not systematically been studied whether the absence of psychopathology also means that counselees do not want to receive help. Their self-reported request for help may be related not only with psychopathology/distress but also with other psychological needs (e.g., surgery decisions), genetics-specific needs (e.g., feeling vulnerable/stigmatized), and existential concerns (e.g., meaning in life). METHODS: Questionnaires were filled in by Dutch cancer patients, before and after disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202), or unclassified variants (n = 16). Newly developed questions measured request for help, psychopathology was estimated with factor analyses on distress/psychopathology instruments, and several validated questionnaires measured other needs/concerns. RESULTS: One-third of all counselees who reported a request for psychological help had actually received help. The level of psychopathology correlated between 0.34 and 0.44 with this self-reported need-for-help. Other needs, genetics-specific distress, and existential concerns correlated strongly/moderately with the counselees' self-reported need-for-help. Examples of other needs were intention to undergo surgery, inaccuracy of their interpretation, the impact of cancer, and family communication difficulties. Genetics-specific distress was for instance feeling vulnerable to develop cancer, stigma, and lack of mastery. Existential concerns were, among others, lack of purpose in life, low self-acceptance, and an unfulfilled wish for certainty. CONCLUSIONS: The request for help is related to multiple factors. Referral to psychosocial professionals may be improved by not only discussing psychopathology during genetic-counseling sessions but also by other needs and existential concerns. Questions about other needs and existential issues may be added to psychological screening instruments.

Rare variants in XRCC2 as breast cancer susceptibility alleles.

BACKGROUND: Recently, rare germline variants in XRCC2 were detected in non-BRCA1/2 familial breast cancer cases, and a significant association with breast cancer was reported. However, the breast cancer risk associated with these variants needs further evaluation. METHODS: The coding regions and exon-intron boundaries of XRCC2 were scanned for mutations in an international cohort of 3548 non-BRCA1/2 familial breast cancer cases and 1435 healthy controls using various mutation scanning methods. Predictions on functional relevance of detected missense variants were obtained from three different prediction algorithms. RESULTS: The only protein-truncating variant detected was found in a control. Rare non-protein-truncating variants were detected in 20 familial cases (0.6%) and nine healthy controls (0.6%). Although the number of variants predicted to be damaging or neutral differed between prediction algorithms, in all instances these categories were evenly represented among cases and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not confirm an association between XRCC2 variants and breast cancer risk, although a relative risk smaller than two could not be excluded. Variants in XRCC2 are unlikely to explain a substantial proportion of familial breast cancer.

Effects of chemotherapy on contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A nationwide cohort study.

AIM: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with primary breast cancer (PBC) are at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). In a nationwide cohort, we investigated the effects of chemotherapeutic agents given for PBC on CBC risk separately in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with an invasive PBC diagnosis from 1990 to 2017 were selected from a Dutch cohort. We estimated cumulative CBC incidence using competing risks analysis. Hazard ratios (HR) for the effect of neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and different chemotherapeutic agents on CBC risk were estimated using Cox regression. RESULTS: We included 1090 BRCA1 and 568 BRCA2 mutation carriers; median follow-up was 8.9 and 8.4 years, respectively. Ten-year cumulative CBC incidence for treatment with and without chemotherapy was 6.7% [95%CI: 5.1-8.6] and 16.7% [95%CI: 10.8-23.7] in BRCA1 and 4.8% [95%CI: 2.7-7.8] and 16.0% [95%CI: 9.3-24.4] in BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. Chemotherapy was associated with reduced CBC risk in BRCA1 (multivariable HR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.29-0.74); a similar trend was observed in BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.29-1.39). In BRCA1, risk reduction was most pronounced in the first 5 years (HR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.17-0.61). Anthracyclines and the combination of anthracyclines with taxanes were associated with substantial CBC risk reduction in BRCA1 carriers (HR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.17-0.68 and HR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.08-0.62, respectively). CONCLUSION: Risk-reducing effects of chemotherapy are substantial for at least 5 years and may be used in personalised CBC risk prediction in any case for BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Exploring the short-term impact of DNA-testing in breast cancer patients: the counselees' perception matters, but the actual BRCA1/2 result does not.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies suggest that learning a DNA-test-result has no direct impact on the medical-decisions and psychological well-being of counselees. Their perception, especially their recollections and interpretations of their cancer-risks and heredity, predict and/or mediate this impact. These studies were criticized for their small range of predictors, mediators, outcomes and contextual factors. We studied the short-term impact of DNA-testing with an extended model. METHODS: Three months after disclosure of BRCA1/2-test-results, we sent counselees a questionnaire about their perception, medical and psychological outcomes, and medical, familial and psychological contexts. 248 affected women participated; 30 had received pathogenic-mutations, 16 unclassified-variants and 202 uninformative-results. RESULTS: The actually communicated genetic-information and the contextual variables predicted the counselees' perception, but did not directly predict any outcomes. The counselees' perception predicted and/or completely mediated the counselees' medical intentions and behavior, physical and psychological life-changes, stigma, mastery, negativity and cancer-worries. Short-term distress was related to the perception not only of their own risks, but also of their relatives' risks and heredity-likelihood. Effect sizes were medium to large. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The outcomes of DNA-testing were better predicted by the counselees' perception than by the actually given genetic-information. We recommend genetic-counselors to have tailored, interactive dialogues about the counselees' perception.