Heritable methylation marks associated with breast and prostate cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: DNA methylation can mimic the effects of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes. Recently, we identified twenty-four heritable methylation marks associated with breast cancer risk. As breast and prostate cancer share genetic risk factors, including rare, high-risk mutations (eg, in BRCA2), we hypothesized that some of these heritable methylation marks might also be associated with the risk of prostate cancer. METHODS: We studied 869 incident prostate cancers (430 aggressive and 439 non-aggressive) and 869 matched controls nested within a prospective cohort study. DNA methylation was measured in pre-diagnostic blood samples using the Illumina Infinium HM450K BeadChip. Conditional logistic regression models, adjusted for prostate cancer risk factors and blood cell composition, were used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between the 24 methylation marks and the risk of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Five methylation marks within the VTRNA2-1 promoter region (cg06536614, cg00124993, cg26328633, cg25340688, and cg26896946), and one in the body of CLGN (cg22901919) were associated with the risk of prostate cancer. In stratified analyses, the five VTRNA2-1 marks were associated with the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This work highlights a potentially important new area of investigation for prostate cancer susceptibility and adds to our knowledge about shared risk factors for breast and prostate cancer.

Contribution of large genomic BRCA1 alterations to early-onset breast cancer selected for family history and tumour morphology: a report from The Breast Cancer Family Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting women affected with breast cancer who are most likely to carry a germline mutation in BRCA1 and applying the most appropriate test methodology remains challenging for cancer genetics services. We sought to test the value of selecting women for BRCA1 mutation testing on the basis of family history and/or breast tumour morphology criteria as well as the value of testing for large genomic alterations in BRCA1. METHODS: We studied women participating in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), recruited via population-based sampling, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 40 years who had a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (n = 187) and/or a first primary breast tumour with morphological features consistent with carrying a BRCA1 germline mutation (n = 133; 37 met both criteria). An additional 184 women diagnosed before the age of 40 years who had a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer and who were not known to carry a germline BRCA1 mutation were selected from among women who had been recruited into the BCFR from clinical genetics services. These 467 women had been screened for BRCA1 germline mutations, and we expanded this testing to include a screen for large genomic BRCA1 alterations using Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification. RESULTS: Twelve large genomic BRCA1 alterations were identified, including 10 (4%) of the 283 women selected from among the population-based sample. In total, 18 (12%), 18 (19%) and 16 (43%) BRCA1 mutations were identified in the population-based groups selected on the basis of family history only (n = 150), the group selected on the basis of tumour morphology only (n = 96) and meeting both criteria (n = 37), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Large genomic alterations accounted for 19% of all BRCA1 mutations identified. This study emphasises the value of combining information about family history, age at diagnosis and tumour morphology when selecting women for germline BRCA1 mutation testing as well as including a screen for large genomic alterations.