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/).

Cancer risks for other sites in addition to breast in CHEK2 c.1100delC families.

PURPOSE: Female CHEK2 c.1100delC heterozygotes are eligible for additional breast surveillance due to an increased breast cancer risk. Increased risks for other cancers have been reported. We studied whether CHEK2 c.1100delC is associated with an increased risk for other cancers within these families. METHODS: Including 10,780 individuals from 609 families, we calculated standardized incidence rates (SIRs) and absolute excess risk (AER, per 10.000 person years) by comparing first-reported cancer derived from the pedigrees with general Dutch population rates from 1970 onwards. Attained-age analyses were performed for sites in which significant increased risks were found. Considering study design, we primarily focused on cancer risk in women. RESULTS: We found significant increased risks of colorectal cancer (CRC; SIR=1.43, 95%CI=1.14-1.76; AER=1.43) and hematological cancers (SIR=1.32; 95%CI=1.02-1.67; AER=0.87). CRC was significantly more frequent from age 45 onwards. CONCLUSION: A significantly increased risk of CRC, and hematological cancers in women was found, starting at a younger age than expected. Currently, colorectal surveillance starts at age 45 in high-risk individuals. Our results suggest that some CHEK2 c.1100delC families might benefit from this surveillance as well, however, further research is needed to determine who may profit from this additional colorectal surveillance.

Clinical applicability of the Polygenic Risk Score for breast cancer risk prediction in familial cases.

BACKGROUND: Common low-risk variants are presently not used to guide clinical management of familial breast cancer (BC). We explored the additive impact of a 313-variant-based Polygenic Risk Score (PRS313) relative to standard gene testing in non-BRCA1/2 Dutch BC families. METHODS: We included 3918 BC cases from 3492 Dutch non-BRCA1/2 BC families and 3474 Dutch population controls. The association of the standardised PRS313 with BC was estimated using a logistic regression model, adjusted for pedigree-based family history. Family history of the controls was imputed for this analysis. SEs were corrected to account for relatedness of individuals. Using the BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) V.5 model, lifetime risks were retrospectively calculated with and without individual PRS313. For 2586 cases and 2584 controls, the carrier status of pathogenic variants (PVs) in ATM, CHEK2 and PALB2 was known. RESULTS: The family history-adjusted PRS313 was significantly associated with BC (per SD OR=1.97, 95% CI 1.84 to 2.11). Including the PRS313 in BOADICEA family-based risk prediction would have changed screening recommendations in up to 27%, 36% and 34% of cases according to BC screening guidelines from the USA, UK and the Netherlands (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation), respectively. For the population controls, without information on family history, this was up to 39%, 44% and 58%, respectively. Among carriers of PVs in known moderate BC susceptibility genes, the PRS313 had the largest impact for CHEK2 and ATM. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the application of the PRS313 in risk prediction for genetically uninformative BC families and families with a PV in moderate BC risk genes.

Breast cancer genomes from CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation carriers lack somatic TP53 mutations and display a unique structural variant size distribution profile.

BACKGROUND: CHEK2 c.1100delC was the first moderate-risk breast cancer (BC) susceptibility allele discovered. Despite several genomic, transcriptomic and functional studies, however, it is still unclear how exactly CHEK2 c.1100delC promotes tumorigenesis. Since the mutational landscape of a tumor reflects the processes that have operated on its development, the aim of this study was to uncover the somatic genomic landscape of CHEK2-associated BC. METHODS: We sequenced primary BC (pBC) and normal genomes of 20 CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation carriers as well as their pBC transcriptomes. Including pre-existing cohorts, we exhaustively compared CHEK2 pBC genomes to those from BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, those that displayed homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and ER- and ER+ pBCs, totaling to 574 pBC genomes. Findings were validated in 517 metastatic BC genomes subdivided into the same subgroups. Transcriptome data from 168 ER+ pBCs were used to derive a TP53-mutant gene expression signature and perform cluster analysis with CHEK2 BC transcriptomes. Finally, clinical outcome of CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers was compared with BC patients displaying somatic TP53 mutations in two well-described retrospective cohorts totaling to 942 independent pBC cases. RESULTS: BC genomes from CHEK2 mutation carriers were most similar to ER+ BC genomes and least similar to those of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in terms of tumor mutational burden as well as mutational signatures. Moreover, CHEK2 BC genomes did not show any evidence of HRD. Somatic TP53 mutation frequency and the size distribution of structural variants (SVs), however, were different compared to ER+ BC. Interestingly, BC genomes with bi-allelic CHEK2 inactivation lacked somatic TP53 mutations and transcriptomic analysis indicated a shared biology with TP53 mutant BC. Moreover, CHEK2 BC genomes had an increased frequency of > 1 Mb deletions, inversions and tandem duplications with peaks at specific sizes. The high chromothripsis frequency among CHEK2 BC genomes appeared, however, not associated with this unique SV size distribution profile. CONCLUSIONS: CHEK2 BC genomes are most similar to ER+ BC genomes, but display unique features that may further unravel CHEK2-driven tumorigenesis. Increased insight into this mechanism could explain the shorter survival of CHEK2 mutation carriers that is likely driven by intrinsic tumor aggressiveness rather than endocrine resistance.

Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci.

Breast cancer risk is influenced by rare coding variants in susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1, and many common, mostly non-coding variants. However, much of the genetic contribution to breast cancer risk remains unknown. Here we report the results of a genome-wide association study of breast cancer in 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry and 14,068 cases and 13,104 controls of East Asian ancestry. We identified 65 new loci that are associated with overall breast cancer risk at P < 5 × 10-8. The majority of credible risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms in these loci fall in distal regulatory elements, and by integrating in silico data to predict target genes in breast cells at each locus, we demonstrate a strong overlap between candidate target genes and somatic driver genes in breast tumours. We also find that heritability of breast cancer due to all single-nucleotide polymorphisms in regulatory features was 2-5-fold enriched relative to the genome-wide average, with strong enrichment for particular transcription factor binding sites. These results provide further insight into genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and will improve the use of genetic risk scores for individualized screening and prevention.

Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes.

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.

Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). METHODS: We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope. RESULTS: The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57-0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59-0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59-0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56-0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51-1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63-3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63-2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65-2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01-1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34-0.43) for the Manchester formula. CONCLUSIONS: Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.

Prediction and clinical utility of a contralateral breast cancer risk model.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors are at risk for contralateral breast cancer (CBC), with the consequent burden of further treatment and potentially less favorable prognosis. We aimed to develop and validate a CBC risk prediction model and evaluate its applicability for clinical decision-making. METHODS: We included data of 132,756 invasive non-metastatic breast cancer patients from 20 studies with 4682 CBC events and a median follow-up of 8.8 years. We developed a multivariable Fine and Gray prediction model (PredictCBC-1A) including patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics and BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, accounting for the competing risks of death and distant metastasis. We also developed a model without BRCA1/2 mutation status (PredictCBC-1B) since this information was available for only 6% of patients and is routinely unavailable in the general breast cancer population. Prediction performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination, calculated by a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and an internal-external cross-validation procedure. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of the model to quantify clinical utility. RESULTS: In the multivariable model, BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, family history, and systemic adjuvant treatment showed the strongest associations with CBC risk. The AUC of PredictCBC-1A was 0.63 (95% prediction interval (PI) at 5 years, 0.52-0.74; at 10 years, 0.53-0.72). Calibration-in-the-large was -0.13 (95% PI: -1.62-1.37), and the calibration slope was 0.90 (95% PI: 0.73-1.08). The AUC of Predict-1B at 10 years was 0.59 (95% PI: 0.52-0.66); calibration was slightly lower. Decision curve analysis for preventive contralateral mastectomy showed potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-1A between thresholds of 4-10% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a reasonably calibrated model to predict the risk of CBC in women of European-descent; however, prediction accuracy was moderate. Our model shows potential for improved risk counseling, but decision-making regarding contralateral preventive mastectomy, especially in the general breast cancer population where limited information of the mutation status in BRCA1/2 is available, remains challenging.

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. METHODS: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. RESULTS: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06-1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08-2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.

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.

Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.

Importance: The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates. Objectives: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years. Exposures: BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer. Results: Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for ≥2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P<.001 for trend) and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P=.02 for trend). Breast cancer risk was higher if mutations were located outside vs within the regions bounded by positions c.2282-c.4071 in BRCA1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P=.007) and c.2831-c.6401 in BRCA2 (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.74; P<.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status using prospective data collection and demonstrate the potential importance of family history and mutation location in risk assessment.

Outcome of ovarian cancer after breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether a history of breast cancer (BC) affects the outcome of BRCA1/2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). This was investigated in the current analysis. METHODS: We included 386 BRCA1/2-associated EOC patients diagnosed between 1980 and 2015. Progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free interval (PFI), overall survival (OS) and ovarian cancer-specific survival (OCSS) were compared between EOC patients with and without previous BC. RESULTS: BRCA-associated EOC patients with, vs without, a BC history had a significantly worse PFS and PFI (multivariate hazard ratio (HRmult) 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.08 and HRmult 1.43; 95% CI 1.01-2.03), and a non-significantly worse OS (HRmult 1.15; 95% CI 0.84-1.57) and OCSS (HRmult 1.18; 95% CI 0.85-1.62). Ovarian cancer-specific survival was significantly worse for the subgroup treated with adjuvant chemotherapy for BC (HRmult 1.99; 95% CI 1.21-3.31). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that BRCA1/2-associated EOC patients with a previous BC have a worse outcome than EOC patients without BC, especially when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

A novel splice site mutation in the noncoding region of BRCA2: implications for Fanconi anemia and familial breast cancer diagnostics.

Fanconi anemia (FA) is a rare recessive disorder with chromosomal instability, congenital abnormalities, and a high cancer risk. The breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2 (FANCD1) is one of the 16 genes involved in this recessive disease. We have identified a novel mutation of the splice donor site of intron 1 in the noncoding region of BRCA2 in a Japanese FA family. This mutation may account for the FA phenotype in a patient originally reported to have biallelic mutations in BRCA2. Subsequent functional studies revealed that one of the mutations, K2729N, was a neutral change. As reported here, a more careful analysis resulted in the identification of a novel splice site mutation. Functional analysis using a mouse embryonic stem cell-based assay revealed that it causes aberrant splicing, reduced transcript levels and hypersensitivity to DNA damaging agents, suggesting that it is likely to be pathogenic. Although similar pathogenic variants in the noncoding region of BRCA1 and 2 were not identified in a cohort of 752 familial breast cancer cases, we still think this finding is relevant for mutation analysis in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome families in a diagnostic setting.

The benefit of adding polygenic risk scores, lifestyle factors, and breast density to family history and genetic status for breast cancer risk and surveillance classification of unaffected women from germline CHEK2 c.1100delC families.

To determine the changes in surveillance category by adding a polygenic risk score based on 311 breast cancer (BC)-associated variants (PRS311), questionnaire-based risk factors and breast density on personalized BC risk in unaffected women from Dutch CHEK2 c.1100delC families. In total, 117 unaffected women (58 heterozygotes and 59 non-carriers) from CHEK2 families were included. Blood-derived DNA samples were genotyped with the GSAMDv3-array to determine PRS311. Lifetime BC risk was calculated in CanRisk, which uses data from the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA). Women, were categorized into three surveillance groups. The surveillance advice was reclassified in 37.9 % of heterozygotes and 32.2 % of non-carriers after adding PRS311. Including questionnaire-based risk factors resulted in an additional change in 20.0 % of heterozygotes and 13.2 % of non-carriers; and a subanalysis showed that adding breast density on top shifted another 17.9 % of heterozygotes and 33.3 % of non-carriers. Overall, the majority of heterozygotes were reclassified to a less intensive surveillance, while non-carriers would require intensified surveillance. The addition of PRS311, questionnaire-based risk factors and breast density to family history resulted in a more personalized BC surveillance advice in CHEK2-families, which may lead to more efficient use of surveillance.

Spectrum and Frequency of Germline FANCM Protein-Truncating Variants in 44,803 European Female Breast Cancer Cases.

FANCM germline protein truncating variants (PTVs) are moderate-risk factors for ER-negative breast cancer. We previously described the spectrum of FANCM PTVs in 114 European breast cancer cases. In the present, larger cohort, we report the spectrum and frequency of four common and 62 rare FANCM PTVs found in 274 carriers detected among 44,803 breast cancer cases. We confirmed that p.Gln1701* was the most common PTV in Northern Europe with lower frequencies in Southern Europe. In contrast, p.Gly1906Alafs*12 was the most common PTV in Southern Europe with decreasing frequencies in Central and Northern Europe. We verified that p.Arg658* was prevalent in Central Europe and had highest frequencies in Eastern Europe. We also confirmed that the fourth most common PTV, p.Gln498Thrfs*7, might be a founder variant from Lithuania. Based on the frequency distribution of the carriers of rare PTVs, we showed that the FANCM PTVs spectra in Southwestern and Central Europe were much more heterogeneous than those from Northeastern Europe. These findings will inform the development of more efficient FANCM genetic testing strategies for breast cancer cases from specific European populations.

CHEK2*1100delC homozygosity is associated with a high breast cancer risk in women.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the CHEK2 gene confer a moderately increased breast cancer risk. The risk for female carriers of the CHEK2*1100delC mutation is twofold increased. Breast cancer risk for carrier women is higher in a familial breast cancer setting which is due to coinheritance of additional genetic risk factors. This study investigated the occurrence of homozygosity for the CHEK2*1100delC allele among familial breast cancer cases and the associated breast cancer risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: Homozygosity for the CHEK2*1100delC allele was identified in 8/2554 Dutch independent familial non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases. The genotype relative risk for breast cancer of homozygous and heterozygous familial breast cancer cases was 101.34 (95% CI 4.47 to 121 000) and 4.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 21.0), respectively. Female homozygotes appeared to have a greater than twofold increased breast cancer risk compared to familial CHEK2*1100delC heterozygotes (p=0.044). These results and the occurrence of multiple primary tumours in 7/10 homozygotes indicate a high cancer risk in homozygous women from non-BRCA1/2 families. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive breast surveillance is therefore justified in these homozygous women. It is concluded that diagnostic testing for biallelic mutations in CHEK2 is indicated in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families, especially in populations with a relatively high prevalence of deleterious mutations in CHEK2.

Challenges in breast cancer genetic testing. A call for novel forms of multidisciplinary care and long-term evaluation.

Current methods of next generation sequencing may simultaneously detect multiple germline breast cancer susceptibility variants. However, it is a challenge to maximize the clinical benefit of genetic analysis for patients and family members while minimizing potentially harmful effects. Relevant issues include criteria for referral, the choice of gene panel, handling of variants of unknown significance, cancer risk counselling in clinical context including family history data, risks of tumours other than breast cancer, handling of potential germline findings revealed by tumour testing and the clinical management of gene variant carriers, including surveillance, targeted therapy, radiotherapy and risk-reducing surgery. We outline current challenges in the field of breast cancer genetics and call for novel forms of multidisciplinary care and long-term evaluation.

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.

Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes.

BACKGROUND: Protein truncating variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with increased breast cancer risk, but risks associated with missense variants in these genes are uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data on 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls from studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium BRIDGES project. We sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1425), CHEK2 (325), and PALB2 (472). We evaluated breast cancer risks according to five in silico prediction-of-deleteriousness algorithms, functional protein domain, and frequency, using logistic regression models and also mixture models in which a subset of variants was assumed to be risk-associated. RESULTS: The most predictive in silico algorithms were Helix (BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2) and CADD (ATM). Increased risks appeared restricted to functional protein domains for ATM (FAT and PIK domains) and BRCA1 (RING and BRCT domains). For ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2, data were compatible with small subsets (approximately 7%, 2%, and 0.6%, respectively) of rare missense variants giving similar risk to those of protein truncating variants in the same gene. For CHEK2, data were more consistent with a large fraction (approximately 60%) of rare missense variants giving a lower risk (OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.47-2.08)) than CHEK2 protein truncating variants. There was little evidence for an association with risk for missense variants in PALB2. The best fitting models were well calibrated in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: These results will inform risk prediction models and the selection of candidate variants for functional assays and could contribute to the clinical reporting of gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Uncovering the Contribution of Moderate-Penetrance Susceptibility Genes to Breast Cancer by Whole-Exome Sequencing and Targeted Enrichment Sequencing of Candidate Genes in Women of European Ancestry.

Rare variants in at least 10 genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2, are associated with increased risk of breast cancer; however, these variants, in combination with common variants identified through genome-wide association studies, explain only a fraction of the familial aggregation of the disease. To identify further susceptibility genes, we performed a two-stage whole-exome sequencing study. In the discovery stage, samples from 1528 breast cancer cases enriched for breast cancer susceptibility and 3733 geographically matched unaffected controls were sequenced. Using five different filtering and gene prioritization strategies, 198 genes were selected for further validation. These genes, and a panel of 32 known or suspected breast cancer susceptibility genes, were assessed in a validation set of 6211 cases and 6019 controls for their association with risk of breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor (ER) disease subtypes, using gene burden tests applied to loss-of-function and rare missense variants. Twenty genes showed nominal evidence of association (p-value < 0.05) with either overall or subtype-specific breast cancer. Our study had the statistical power to detect susceptibility genes with effect sizes similar to ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, however, it was underpowered to identify genes in which susceptibility variants are rarer or confer smaller effect sizes. Larger sample sizes would be required in order to identify such genes.