Prostate Cancer Risk by BRCA2 Genomic Regions.

A BRCA2 prostate cancer cluster region (PCCR) was recently proposed (c.7914 to 3') wherein pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with higher prostate cancer (PCa) risk than PVs elsewhere in the BRCA2 gene. Using a prospective cohort study of 447 male BRCA2 PV carriers recruited in the UK and Ireland from 1998 to 2016, we estimated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared with population incidences and assessed variation in risk by PV location. Carriers of PVs in the PCCR had a PCa SIR of 8.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.46-15.6) and were at a higher risk of PCa than carriers of other BRCA2 PVs (SIR = 3.31, 95% CI 1.97-5.57; hazard ratio = 2.34, 95% CI 1.09-5.03). PCCR PV carriers had an estimated cumulative PCa risk of 44% (95% CI 23-72%) by the age of 75 yr and 78% (95% CI 54-94%) by the age of 85 yr. Our results corroborate the existence of a PCCR in BRCA2 in a prospective cohort. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we investigated whether the risk of prostate cancer for men with a harmful mutation in the BRCA2 gene differs based on where in the gene the mutation is located. We found that men with mutations in one region of BRCA2 had a higher risk of prostate cancer than men with mutations elsewhere in the gene.

Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk but a wide range of risk estimates have been reported that are based on retrospective studies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative and absolute PCa risks associated with BRCA1/2 mutations and to assess risk modification by age, family history, and mutation location. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective cohort study of male BRCA1 (n = 376) and BRCA2 carriers (n = 447) identified in clinical genetics centres in the UK and Ireland (median follow-up 5.9 and 5.3 yr, respectively). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Standardised incidence/mortality ratios (SIRs/SMRs) relative to population incidences or mortality rates, absolute risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using cohort and survival analysis methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Sixteen BRCA1 and 26 BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed with PCa during follow-up. BRCA2 carriers had an SIR of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.99-6.61) and absolute PCa risk of 27% (95% CI 17-41%) and 60% (95% CI 43-78%) by ages 75 and 85 yr, respectively. For BRCA1 carriers, the overall SIR was 2.35 (95% CI 1.43-3.88); the corresponding SIR at age <65 yr was 3.57 (95% CI 1.68-7.58). However, the BRCA1 SIR varied between 0.74 and 2.83 in sensitivity analyses to assess potential screening effects. PCa risk for BRCA2 carriers increased with family history (HR per affected relative 1.68, 95% CI 0.99-2.85). BRCA2 mutations in the region bounded by positions c.2831 and c.6401 were associated with an SIR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.07-5.64) compared to population incidences, corresponding to lower PCa risk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.96) than for mutations outside the region. BRCA2 carriers had a stronger association with Gleason score ≥7 (SIR 5.07, 95% CI 3.20-8.02) than Gleason score ≤6 PCa (SIR 3.03, 95% CI 1.24-7.44), and a higher risk of death from PCa (SMR 3.85, 95% CI 1.44-10.3). Limitations include potential screening effects for these known mutation carriers; however, the BRCA2 results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results substantiate PCa risk patterns indicated by retrospective analyses for BRCA2 carriers, including further evidence of association with aggressive PCa, and give some support for a weaker association in BRCA1 carriers. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we followed unaffected men known to carry mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to investigate whether they are at higher risk of developing prostate cancer compared to the general population. We found that carriers of BRCA2 mutations have a high risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly more aggressive prostate cancer, and that this risk varies by family history of prostate cancer and the location of the mutation within the gene.

Risks of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predictive test negatives: findings from the EMBRACE study.

PURPOSE: BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives are proven noncarriers of a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation that is carried by their relatives. The risk of developing breast cancer (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in these women is uncertain. The study aimed to estimate risks of invasive BC and EOC in a large cohort of BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives. METHODS: We used cohort analysis to estimate incidences, cumulative risks, and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: A total of 1,895 unaffected women were eligible for inclusion in the BC risk analysis and 1,736 in the EOC risk analysis. There were 23 incident invasive BCs and 2 EOCs. The cumulative risk of invasive BC was 9.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-15%) by age 85 years and the corresponding risk of EOC was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-2.6%). The SIR for invasive BC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) in the overall cohort, 0.85 (95% CI 0.48-1.50) in noncarriers from BRCA1 families, and 1.03 (95% CI 0.57-1.87) in noncarriers from BRCA2 families. The SIR for EOC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.20-3.17) in the overall cohort. CONCLUSION: Our results did not provide evidence for elevated risks of invasive BC or EOC in BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives.

Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE.

BACKGROUND: Reliable estimates of cancer risk are critical for guiding management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. The aims of this study were to derive penetrance estimates for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and contralateral breast cancer in a prospective series of mutation carriers and to assess how these risks are modified by common breast cancer susceptibility alleles. METHODS: Prospective cancer risks were estimated using a cohort of 978 BRCA1 and 909 BRCA2 carriers from the United Kingdom. Nine hundred eighty-eight women had no breast or ovarian cancer diagnosis at baseline, 1509 women were unaffected by ovarian cancer, and 651 had been diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. Cumulative risks were obtained using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Associations between cancer risk and covariables of interest were evaluated using Cox regression. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The average cumulative risks by age 70 years for BRCA1 carriers were estimated to be 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 44% to 75%) for breast cancer, 59% (95% CI = 43% to 76%) for ovarian cancer, and 83% (95% CI = 69% to 94%) for contralateral breast cancer. For BRCA2 carriers, the corresponding risks were 55% (95% CI = 41% to 70%) for breast cancer, 16.5% (95% CI = 7.5% to 34%) for ovarian cancer, and 62% (95% CI = 44% to 79.5%) for contralateral breast cancer. BRCA2 carriers in the highest tertile of risk, defined by the joint genotype distribution of seven single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with breast cancer risk, were at statistically significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer than those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio = 4.1, 95% CI = 1.2 to 14.5; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective risk estimates confirm that BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers are at high risk of developing breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer. Our results confirm findings from retrospective studies that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles in combination are predictive of breast cancer risk for BRCA2 carriers.

No association of TGFB1 L10P genotypes and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a multi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The transforming growth factor beta-1 gene (TGFB1) is a plausible candidate for breast cancer susceptibility. The L10P variant of TGFB1 is associated with higher circulating levels and secretion of TGF-beta, and recent large-scale studies suggest strongly that this variant is associated with breast cancer risk in the general population. METHODS: To evaluate whether TGFB1 L10P also modifies the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, we undertook a multi-center study of 3,442 BRCA1 and 2,095 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: We found no evidence of association between TGFB1 L10P and breast cancer risk in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. The per-allele HR for the L10P variant was 1.01 (95%CI: 0.92-1.11) in BRCA1 carriers and 0.92 (95%CI: 0.81-1.04) in BRCA2 mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis that TGFB1 L10P genotypes modify the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Predicting breast cancer risk: implications of a "weak" family history.

Published guidelines adopted in many countries recommend that women whose family history of breast cancer places them at a risk>or=1.7 times that of the age-matched general population, should be considered for inclusion in special surveillance programmes. However validation of risk assessment models has been called for as a matter of urgency. The databases of the four Scottish Familial Breast Cancer clinics and the Scottish Cancer Registry have been searched to identify breast cancers occurring among 1,125 women aged 40-56, with family histories placing them below the "moderate" level of genetic risk. The observed incidence over 6 years was compared with age-specific data for the Scottish population. Our findings confirm that when there are two affected relatives (one first degree) the relative risk (RR) exceeds 1.7 regardless of their ages at diagnosis. When only one (first degree) relative was affected at any age from 40 to 55, the RR does not reach 1.7 if that relative was a mother but exceeds it if the relative was a sister. The probable explanation is that sisters are more likely than mother/daughter pairs to share homozygosity for a risk allele. Surveillance programmes might therefore accommodate sisters of women affected before age 55. Evidence that "low penetrance" alleles contributing to breast cancer risk may be recessive should be taken into account in strategies for identifying them.

Risk estimation for familial breast cancer: improving the system of counselling.

Women with a family history of breast cancer dominate referrals for cancer genetic risk counselling across Europe. Given limited health care resources, managing this demand, while achieving good value for money for health services, is a major challenge. The paper reports the benefits and associated costs of moving from a traditional system of deriving family history of cancer during the patient's initial clinic attendance, to a protocol-driven system with pre-counselling assessment of family history. The evaluation was based on retrospective clinical data and a clinical audit. Changes in risk between referral and final risk assessment were ascertained and the cost difference between the two systems estimated. The study results showed that 14% of women assessed as 'low' genetic risk at referral were reassessed as 'moderate' or 'high' genetic risk for breast cancer following verification of family history. Sixteen per cent of those assessed as 'moderate' or 'high' genetic risk at referral were reassessed as 'low' genetic risk for breast cancer. Compared to the traditional system, the new protocol-driven system of risk assessment was more consistent, which reduced the number of return appointments and created time for clinicians to spend with other patients. The estimated cost of family history verification and genetic clinic appointment was calculated as 91.68 pounds (132.53 euro) per family history, compared to 104.00 pounds (150.34 euro) for the traditional system, representing a slight reduction in health service costs. Finally, the protocol-driven system can be used as part of ongoing audit for planning future genetics services in Scotland.

Surveillance for familial breast cancer: Differences in outcome according to BRCA mutation status.

Women with a family history of breast cancer are commonly offered regular clinical or mammographic surveillance from age 30. Data on the efficacy of such programmes are limited. Clinical, pathological and outcome data were recorded on all breast and ovarian cancers diagnosed within familial breast cancer surveillance programmes at collaborating centers in Norway and the UK up to the end of 2005. These have been analyzed according to the mutation status of the affected women (BRCA1+ve, BRCA2+ve or mutation-negative). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 442 patients subsequently followed for a total of 2095 years. Eighty-nine (20%) had BRCA1 mutations, 35 (8%) BRCA2 mutations and in 318 (72%) no mutation could be detected ("mut neg"). Five-year survival in BRCA1 was 73% compared to 96% in BRCA2 and 92% in mut neg (p = 0.000). Among BRCA1 mutation-carriers, 5-year survival was 67% for cases diagnosed as carcinoma in situ, 84% for node-negative invasive cancers and 58% for those with nodal involvement (p > 0.05). For BRCA2 mutation-carriers the corresponding figures were 100, 100 and 90% (p > 0.05), while for mut neg women they were 100, 97 and 71% (p = 0.03). Regular surveillance in women at increased familial risk of breast cancer is associated with a good outcome if they carry BRCA2 mutations or no detectable mutation. Carriers of BRCA1 mutations fare significantly worse, even when their tumors are diagnosed at an apparently early stage. The differences in outcome associated with different genetic causes of disease were associated with demonstrated differences in tumor biology. The findings demonstrate the outcome for genetically different breast cancers detected within a programme for early diagnosis and treatment, which is relevant to genetic counseling when women at risk have to chose between the options for preventing death from inherited breast cancer.

Survival in prospectively ascertained familial breast cancer: analysis of a series stratified by tumour characteristics, BRCA mutations and oophorectomy.

Dedicated clinics have been established for the early diagnosis and treatment of women at risk for inherited breast cancer, but the effects of such interventions are currently unproven. This second report on prospectively diagnosed inherited breast cancer from the European collaborating centres supports the previous conclusions and adds information on genetic heterogeneity and the effect of oophorectomy. Of 249 patients, 20% had carcinoma in situ (CIS), 54% had infiltrating cancer without spread (CaN0) and 26% had cancer with spread (CaN+). Five-year survival was 100% for CIS, 94% for CaN0 and 72% for CaN+ (p = 0.007). Thirty-six patients had BRCA1 mutations, and 8 had BRCA2 mutations. Presence of BRCA1 mutation was associated with infiltrating cancer, high grade and lack of oestrogen receptor (p < 0.05 for all 3 characteristics). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, 5-year survival was 63% vs. 91% for noncarriers (p = 0.04). For CaN0 patients, mutation carriers had 75% 5-year disease-free survival vs. 96% for noncarriers (p = 0.01). Twenty-one of the mutation carriers had undergone prophylactic oophorectomy, prior to or within 6 months of diagnosis in 13 cases. All but 1 relapse occurred in the 15 who had kept their ovaries, (p < 0.01); no relapse occurred in those who had removed the ovaries within 6 months (p = 0.04) Contralateral cancer was more frequently observed in mutation noncarriers, but this finding did not reach statistical significance. Our findings support the concept that BRCA1 cancer is biologically different from other inherited breast cancers. While current screening protocols appear satisfactory for the majority of women at risk of familial breast cancer, this may not be the case for BRCA1 mutation carriers. The observed effect of oophorectomy was striking.