Analysis of rare disruptive germline mutations in 2135 enriched BRCA-negative breast cancers excludes additional high-impact susceptibility genes.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer has a significant heritable basis, of which ∼60% remains unexplained. Testing for BRCA1/BRCA2 offers useful discrimination of breast cancer risk within families, and identification of additional breast cancer susceptibility genes could offer clinical utility. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 2135 invasive breast cancer cases recruited via the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility study, a retrospective UK study of familial breast cancer. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: female, BRCA-negative, white European ethnicity, and one of: (i) breast cancer family history, (ii) bilateral disease, (iii) young age of onset (<30 years), and (iv) concomitant ovarian cancer. We undertook exome sequencing of cases and carried out gene-level burden testing of rare damaging variants against those from 51 377 ethnicity-matched population controls from gnomAD. RESULTS: 159/2135 (7.4%) cases had a qualifying variant in an established breast cancer susceptibility gene, with minimal evidence of signal in other cancer susceptibility genes. Known breast cancer susceptibility genes PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the only genes to retain statistical significance after correcting for multiple testing. Due to the enrichment of hereditary cases in the series, we had good power (>80%) to detect a gene of BRCA1-like risk [odds ratio (OR) = 10.6] down to a population minor allele frequency of 4.6 × 10-5 (1 in 10 799, less than one-tenth that of BRCA1)and of PALB2-like risk (OR = 5.0) down to a population minor allele frequency of 2.8 × 10-4 (1 in 1779, less than half that of PALB2). Power was lower for identification of novel moderate penetrance genes (OR = 2-3) like CHEK2 and ATM. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest case-control whole-exome analysis of enriched breast cancer published to date. Whilst additional breast cancer susceptibility genes likely exist, those of high penetrance are likely to be of very low mutational frequency. Contention exists regarding the clinical utility of such genes.

Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes.

PURPOSE: Where multiple in silico tools are concordant, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) framework affords supporting evidence toward pathogenicity or benignity, equivalent to a likelihood ratio of ~2. However, limited availability of "clinical truth sets" and prior use in tool training limits their utility for evaluation of tool performance. METHODS: We created a truth set of 9,436 missense variants classified as deleterious or tolerated in clinically validated high-throughput functional assays for BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2, PTEN, and TP53 to evaluate predictive performance for 44 recommended/commonly used in silico tools. RESULTS: Over two-thirds of the tool-threshold combinations examined had specificity of <50%, thus substantially overcalling deleteriousness. REVEL scores of 0.8-1.0 had a Positive Likelihood Ratio (PLR) of 6.74 (5.24-8.82) compared to scores <0.7 and scores of 0-0.4 had a Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR) of 34.3 (31.5-37.3) compared to scores of >0.7. For Meta-SNP, the equivalent PLR = 42.9 (14.4-406) and NLR = 19.4 (15.6-24.9). CONCLUSION: Against these clinically validated "functional truth sets," there was wide variation in the predictive performance of commonly used in silico tools. Overall, REVEL and Meta-SNP had best balanced accuracy and might potentially be used at stronger evidence weighting than current ACMG/AMP prescription, in particular for predictions of benignity.

Final Results of the Prospective FH02 Mammographic Surveillance Study of Women Aged 35-39 at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many women who are at increased risk of breast cancer due to a mother or sister diagnosed with breast cancer aged under 40 do not currently qualify for surveillance before 40 years of age. There are almost no available data to assess whether mammography screening aged 35-39 years would be effective in this group, in terms of detection of breast cancer at an early stage or cost effective. METHODS: A cohort screening study (FH02) with annual mammography was devised for women aged 35-39 to assess the sensitivity and screening performance and potential survival of women with identified tumours. FINDINGS: 2899 women were recruited from 12/2006-12/2015. These women underwent 12,086 annual screening mammograms and were followed for 13,365.8 years. A total of 55 breast cancers in 54 women occurred during the study period (one bilateral) with 50 cancers (49 women) (15 CIS) adherent to the screening. Eighty percent (28/35) of invasive cancers were ≤ 2 cm and 80% also lymph node negative. Invasive cancers diagnosed in FH02 were significantly smaller than the comparable (POSH-unscreened prospective) study group (45% (131/293) ≤ 2 cm in POSH vs 80% (28/35) in FH02 p < 0.0001), and were less likely to be lymph-node positive (54% (158/290, 3 unknown) in POSH vs 20% (7/35) in FH02: p = 0.0002. Projected and actual survival were also better than POSH. Overall radiation dose was not higher than in an older screened population at mean dose on study per standard sized breast of 1.5 mGy. INTERPRETATION: Mammography screening aged 35-39 years detects breast cancer at an early stage and is likely to be as effective in reducing mortality as in women at increased breast cancer risk aged 40-49 years.

The presentation, management and outcome of inflammatory breast cancer cases in the UK: Data from a multi-centre retrospective review.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory Breast cancer (IBC) is a rare but aggressive form of breast cancer. Its incidence and behaviour in the UK is poorly characterised. We collected retrospective data from hospitals in the UK and Ireland to describe the presentation, pathology, treatment and clinical course of IBC in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with IBC diagnosed between 1997-2014 at fourteen UK and Irish hospitals were identified from local breast unit databases. Patient characteristics, tumour pathology and stage, and details of surgical, systemic and radiotherapy treatment and follow-up data were collected from electronic patient records and medical notes. RESULT: This retrospective review identified 445 patients with IBC accounting for 0.4-1.8% of invasive breast cancer cases. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. 53.2% of tumours were grade 3, 56.2% were oestrogen receptor positive, 31.3% were HER2 positive and 25.1% were triple negative. 20.7% of patients had distant metastases at presentation. Despite trimodality treatment in 86.4%, 40.1% of stage III patients developed distant metastases. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 61.0% for stage III and 21.4% for stage IV patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of UK IBC patients reported to date. It indicates a lower incidence than in American series, but confirms that IBC has a high risk of recurrence with poor survival despite contemporary multi-modality therapy. A national strategy is required to facilitate translational research into this aggressive disease.

Genetic testing in a cohort of young patients with HER2-amplified breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Young age at diagnosis for breast cancer raises the question of genetic susceptibility. We explored breast cancer susceptibility genes testing on ≤40-year-old patients with HER2-amplified invasive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were selected from a large UK cohort study. The inclusion criterion was age ≤40 at diagnosis with confirmed HER2-amplified breast cancer. The probability of finding a BRCA gene mutation was calculated based on family history. Genetic testing used was either clinical testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a subset also tested for TP53 mutations, or research-based testing using a typical panel comprising 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) including BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53. RESULTS: Of the 591 eligible patients, clinical testing results were available for 133 cases and an additional 263 cases had panel testing results. BRCA testing across 396 cases found 8 BRCA2 (2%) and 6 BRCA1 (2%) pathogenic mutations. Of the 304 patients tested for TP53 mutations, overall 9 (3%) had deleterious TP53 mutations. Of the 396 patients, 101 (26%) met clinical criteria for BRCA testing (≥10% probability), among whom 11% had pathogenic BRCA mutations (6 BRCA2, 5 BRCA1). Where the probability was calculated to be <10%, only 4 of 295 (1%) patients had BRCA mutations. Among the 59 patients who had TP53 testing meeting the 10% threshold, 7 had mutations (12%). Likely functionally deleterious mutations in 14 lower penetrance CSGs were present in 12 of 263 (5%) panel-tested patients. CONCLUSION: Patients aged <41 at diagnosis with HER2+ breast cancer and no family history of breast cancer can be reassured that they have a low chance of being a high-risk gene carrier. If there is a strong family history, not only BRCA but also TP53 gene testing should be considered. The clinical utility of testing lower penetrance CSGs remains unclear.

Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming genetic medicine, increased media coverage and clinical trials for BRCA mutation carriers are leading oncologists into more patient discussions about BRCA genetic testing. BRCA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in 10-20% of tests. VUS detection introduces additional uncertainty for patient and potentially clinician. We aimed to explore the ability of breast cancer specialists (BCS) in the UK to correctly respond to a VUS report. METHODS: A survey sent to 800 UK BCS collected demographics data, VUS general knowledge and interpretation and communication based on two genetics reports. A separate survey of UK clinical geneticists collected demographics data, laboratory reporting practice and methods used to clarify VUS pathogenicity including classification systems. RESULTS: Of the 155 BCS (22.5%) who completed the survey, 12% reported no genetics training. Ninety five percent referred patients for BRCA genetic tests, 71% felt unsure about the clinical implications of the test reports presented here. A VUS report from a patient with a positive family history was interpreted and theoretically communicated correctly by 94% but when presented with a different VUS report with no management guidance and negative family history, 39% did not know how to communicate this result to the patient. Geneticists reported multiple VUS classification systems; the most commonly used was word-based in 32%. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent and standardised format to report particularly VUS results across all diagnostic laboratories plus additional training of UK BCS will be necessary for effective mainstreaming of BRCA testing to the oncology clinic.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of BRCA1/2 testing for tailoring cancer treatment and extension of testing to tumour tissue for somatic mutation is moving BRCA1/2 mutation screening from a primarily prevention arena delivered by specialist genetic services into mainstream oncology practice. A considerable number of gene tests will identify rare variants where clinical significance cannot be inferred from sequence information alone. The proportion of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) is likely to grow with lower thresholds for testing and laboratory providers with less experience of BRCA. Most VUS will not be associated with a high risk of cancer but a misinterpreted VUS has the potential to lead to mismanagement of both the patient and their relatives. DESIGN: Members of the Clinical Working Group of ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) global consortium (www.enigmaconsortium.org) observed wide variation in practices in reporting, disclosure and clinical management of patients with a VUS. Examples from current clinical practice are presented and discussed to illustrate potential pitfalls, explore factors contributing to misinterpretation, and propose approaches to improving clarity. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients and their relatives would all benefit from an improved level of genetic literacy. Genetic laboratories working with clinical geneticists need to agree on a clinically clear and uniform format for reporting BRCA test results to non-geneticists. An international consortium of experts, collecting and integrating all available lines of evidence and classifying variants according to an internationally recognized system, will facilitate reclassification of variants for clinical use.

Family history and outcome of young patients with breast cancer in the UK (POSH study).

BACKGROUND: Young patients presenting to surgical clinics with breast cancer are usually aware of their family history and frequently believe that a positive family history may adversely affect their prognosis. Tumour pathology and outcomes were compared in young British patients with breast cancer with and without a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Prospective Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) is a large prospective cohort study of women aged less than 41 years with breast cancer diagnosed and treated in the UK using modern oncological management. Personal characteristics, tumour pathology, treatment and family history of breast/ovarian cancer were recorded. Follow-up data were collected annually. RESULTS: Family history data were available for 2850 patients. No family history was reported by 65·9 per cent, and 34·1 per cent reported breast/ovarian cancer in at least one first- or second-degree relative. Patients with a family history were more likely to have grade 3 tumours (63·3 versus 58·9 per cent) and less likely to have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive tumours (24·7 versus 28·8 per cent) than those with no family history. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in distant disease-free intervals for patients with versus those without a family history, either for the whole cohort (hazard ratio (HR) 0·89, 95 per cent c.i. 0·76 to 1·03; P = 0·120) or when stratified by oestrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-negative: HR 0·80, 0·62 to 1·04, P = 0·101; ER-positive: HR 0·95, 0·78 to 1·15, P = 0·589). CONCLUSION: Young British patients presenting to breast surgical clinics with a positive family history can be reassured that this is not a significant independent risk factor for breast cancer outcome.

An evaluation of the prognostic model PREDICT using the POSH cohort of women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in younger women (aged ⩽40 years) in the United Kingdom. PREDICT (http://www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostic tool developed to help determine the best available treatment and outcome for early breast cancer. This study was conducted to establish how well PREDICT performs in estimating survival in a large cohort of younger women recruited to the UK POSH study. METHODS: The POSH cohort includes data from 3000 women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis. Study end points were overall and breast cancer-specific survival at 5, 8, and 10 years. Evaluation of PREDICT included model discrimination and comparison of the number of predicted versus observed events. RESULTS: PREDICT provided accurate long-term (8- and 10-year) survival estimates for younger women. Five-year estimates were less accurate, with the tool overestimating survival by 25% overall, and by 56% for patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours. PREDICT underestimated survival at 5 years among patients with ER-negative tumours. CONCLUSIONS: PREDICT is a useful tool for providing reliable long-term (10-year) survival estimates for younger patients. However, for more accurate short-term estimates, the model requires further calibration using more data from young onset cases. Short-term prediction may be most relevant for the increasing number of women considering risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy.

Tamoxifen metabolism predicts drug concentrations and outcome in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer.

Tamoxifen is the standard-of-care treatment for estrogen receptor-positive premenopausal breast cancer. We examined tamoxifen metabolism via blood metabolite concentrations and germline variations of CYP3A5, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 in 587 premenopausal patients (Asians, Middle Eastern Arabs, Caucasian-UK; median age 39 years) and clinical outcome in 306 patients. N-desmethyltamoxifen (DM-Tam)/(Z)-endoxifen and CYP2D6 phenotype significantly correlated across ethnicities (R(2): 53%, P<10(-77)). CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 correlated with norendoxifen and (Z)-4-hydroxytamoxifen concentrations, respectively (P<0.001). DM-Tam was influenced by body mass index (P<0.001). Improved distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) was associated with decreasing DM-Tam/(Z)-endoxifen (P=0.036) and increasing CYP2D6 activity score (hazard ratio (HR)=0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-0.91; P=0.013). Low (<14 nM) compared with high (>35 nM) endoxifen concentrations were associated with shorter DRFS (univariate P=0.03; multivariate HR=1.94; 95% CI, 1.04-4.14; P=0.064). Our data indicate that endoxifen formation in premenopausal women depends on CYP2D6 irrespective of ethnicity. Low endoxifen concentration/formation and decreased CYP2D6 activity predict shorter DRFS.

Obesity and the outcome of young breast cancer patients in the UK: the POSH study.

BACKGROUND: Obese breast cancer patients have a poorer prognosis than non-obese patients. We examined data from a large prospective cohort study to explore the associations of obesity with tumour pathology, treatment and outcome in young British breast cancer patients receiving modern oncological treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2956 patients aged ≤40 at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from 126 UK hospitals from 2001 to 2007. Height and weight were measured at registration. Tumour pathology and treatment details were collected. Follow-up data were collected at 6, 12 months, and annually. RESULTS: A total of 2843 eligible patients (96.2%) had a body mass index (BMI) recorded: 1526 (53.7%) were under/healthy-weight (U/H, BMI <25 kg/m(2)), 784 (27.6%) were overweight (ov, BMI ≥25 to <30), and 533 (18.7%) were obese (ob, BMI ≥30). The median tumour size was significantly higher in obese and overweight patients than U/H patients (Ob 26 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001; Ov 24 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001). Obese and overweight patients had significantly more grade 3 tumours (63.9% versus 59.0%, P = 0.048; Ov 63.6% versus U/H 59.0% P = 0.034) and node-positive tumours (Ob 54.6% versus U/H 49.0%, P = 0.027; Ov 54.2% versus U/H 49%, P = 0.019) than U/H patients. Obese patients had more ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours than healthy-weight patients (25.0% versus 18.3%, P = 0.001). Eight-year overall survival (OS) and distant disease-free interval (DDFI) were significantly lower in obese patients than healthy-weight patients [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, P < 0.001; DDFI: HR 1.44, P < 0.001]. Multivariable analyses adjusting for tumour grade, size, nodal, and HER2 status indicated that obesity was a significant independent predictor of OS and DDFI in patients with ER-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Young obese breast cancer patients present with adverse tumour characteristics. Despite adjustment for this, obesity still independently predicts DDFI and OS.

Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35-39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02).

Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35-39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32%). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.

Stratified cancer screening: the practicalities of implementation.

BACKGROUND: Improving understanding of the genetic basis of disease susceptibility enables us to estimate individuals' risk of developing cancer and offer them disease prevention, including screening, stratified to reflect that risk. Little attention has so far been given to the implementation of stratified screening. This article reviews the issues that would arise in delivering such tailored approaches to prevention in practice. RESULTS: Issues analysed include the organisational context within which implementation of stratified prevention would occur, how the offer of screening would be made, making sure consent is adequately informed, how individuals' risk would be assessed, the age at which risk estimation should occur, and the potential use of genetic data for other purposes. The review also considers how management might differ depending on individuals' risk, how their results would be communicated and their follow-up arranged, and the different issues raised by modification of an existing screening programme, such as that for breast cancer, and the establishment of a new one, for example for prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: Stratified screening based on genetic testing is a radically new approach to prevention. Various organisational issues would need to be considered before it could be introduced, and a number of questions require further research.

BRCA1 testing should be offered to individuals with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed below 50 years.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative (TN) tumours are the predominant breast cancer subtype in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Recently, it was proposed that all individuals below 50 years of age with TN breast cancer should be offered BRCA testing. We have evaluated the BRCA1 mutation frequency and the implications for clinical practice of undertaking genetic testing in women with TN breast cancer. METHODS: We undertook BRCA1 mutation analysis in 308 individuals with TN breast cancer, 159 individuals from unselected series of breast cancer and 149 individuals from series ascertained on the basis of young age and/or family history. RESULTS: BRCA1 mutations were present in 45 out of 308 individuals. Individuals with TN cancer <50 years had >10% likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 mutation in both the unselected (11 out of 58, 19%) and selected (26 out of 111, 23%) series. However, over a third would not have been offered testing using existing criteria. We estimate that testing all individuals with TN breast cancer <50 years would generate an extra 1200 tests annually in England. CONCLUSION: Women with TN breast cancer diagnosed below 50 years have >10% likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 mutation and are therefore eligible for testing in most centres. However, implementation may place short-term logistical and financial burdens on genetic services.

Evaluation of the XRCC1 gene as a phenotypic modifier in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Results from the consortium of investigators of modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2.

BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair are good candidates to be tested as phenotypic modifiers for carriers of mutations in the high-risk susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. The base excision repair (BER) pathway could be particularly interesting given the relation of synthetic lethality that exists between one of the components of the pathway, PARP1, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we have evaluated the XRCC1 gene that participates in the BER pathway, as phenotypic modifier of BRCA1 and BRCA2. METHODS: Three common SNPs in the gene, c.-77C>T (rs3213245) p.Arg280His (rs25489) and p.Gln399Arg (rs25487) were analysed in a series of 701 BRCA1 and 576 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: An association was observed between p.Arg280His-rs25489 and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers, with rare homozygotes at increased risk relative to common homozygotes (hazard ratio: 22.3, 95% confidence interval: 14.3-34, P<0.001). This association was further tested in a second series of 4480 BRCA1 and 3016 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATION: No evidence of association was found when the larger series was analysed which lead us to conclude that none of the three SNPs are significant modifiers of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers.

Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of targeted prostate cancer screening in men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, an international study, IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls), was established. This is the first multicentre screening study targeted at men with a known genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. A preliminary analysis of the data is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 40-69 years from families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were offered annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, and those with PSA > 3 ng/mL, were offered a prostate biopsy. Controls were men age-matched (± 5 years) who were negative for the familial mutation. RESULTS: In total, 300 men were recruited (205 mutation carriers; 89 BRCA1, 116 BRCA2 and 95 controls) over 33 months. At the baseline screen (year 1), 7.0% (21/300) underwent a prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in ten individuals, a prevalence of 3.3%. The positive predictive value of PSA screening in this cohort was 47·6% (10/21). One prostate cancer was diagnosed at year 2. Of the 11 prostate cancers diagnosed, nine were in mutation carriers, two in controls, and eight were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the positive predictive value of PSA screening in BRCA mutation carriers is high and that screening detects clinically significant prostate cancer. These results support the rationale for continued screening in such men.

Development of genetic testing for breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer predisposition: a step closer to targeted cancer prevention.

Individuals who inherit a high penetrance cancer susceptibility gene represent a population in which cancer diagnoses occur at younger ages and much more frequently than in the general population. Screening regimens aimed at early detection of cancer may reduce cancer mortality but in order to reduce cancer incidence, surgery and medical therapies have been advocated. In high genetic risk patients, either surgical or medical intervention may provide long term protection against cancer and at young ages co-morbidities will be low. The use of genetic testing for high risk predisposition genes to refine risk estimates and inform choices about cancer prevention is now readily available in many countries and routinely used to target cancer prevention strategies. Surgical approaches to cancer prevention are currently the mainstay in many conditions where a high risk is identified but medical prevention strategies also have demonstrated some efficacy in lowering cancer risk. Using the genetic status of an individual to target cancer treatment and prevent recurrence is increasingly gaining momentum as clinical trials involving known high risk gene carriers are now being conducted using both established cytotoxic drugs and novel targeted agents. Translation of new mechanistic insights into beneficial clinical care strategies requires more research. Robust evidence supporting medical approaches to cancer prevention in particular will require well designed large international collaborative clinical trials.

A novel HER2-positive breast cancer phenotype arising from germline TP53 mutations.

INTRODUCTION: The Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is caused by a germline TP53 mutation and is associated with a high risk of breast cancer at young ages. Basal (triple negative) breast cancers are now well recognised to be a typical sub-type of breast cancer developing in a large proportion of BRCA1 gene carriers. We considered whether a similar narrow sub-type of breast cancer was found in TP53 gene mutation carriers. OBJECTIVE: A hypothesis generating study to investigate whether there are specific breast tumour characteristics associated with germline TP53 mutations. METHODS: Pathological characteristics in 12 breast cancers arising in nine patients carrying pathogenic TP53 mutations were compared to a reference panel of 231 young onset breast tumours included in the POSH study. RESULTS: Patients carrying a TP53 mutation showed a significantly higher likelihood of developing a breast cancer with Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor (HER2) amplification (83%) when compared to the cohort of young onset breast cancer cases (16%); ER and PR status were equivalent between groups. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that breast cancer developing on a background of an inherited TP53 mutation is highly likely to present with amplification of HER2.

First case report of Muir-Torre syndrome associated with non-small cell lung cancer.

The eponymous Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is a clinical variant of hereditary non polyposis colorectal cancer, and is defined as an autosomal dominant condition with simultaneous sebaceous neoplasms of the skin and visceral malignant disease resulting from germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. To date the most common visceral malignancy described is colorectal cancer, which is seen in approximately 50% of cases. Other clearly associated tumours include endometrial adenocarcinomas, urothelial transitional cell carcinomas, upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, sebaceous adenomas and ovarian (often mucinous) carcinomas. Here we report the first recorded case of adenocarcinoma of the lung with loss of MMR gene function to be identified in a patient with MTS. The MMR deficient lung tumour demonstrated less aggressive clinical behaviour compared with a synchronous MMR proficient lung adenocarcinoma.