Characterization of BRCA Deficiency in Ovarian Cancer.

BRCA testing is recommended in all Ovarian Cancer (OC) patients, but the optimal approach is debated. The landscape of BRCA alterations was explored in 30 consecutive OC patients: 6 (20.0%) carried germline pathogenic variants, 1 (3.3%) a somatic mutation of BRCA2, 2 (6.7%) unclassified germline variants in BRCA1, and 5 (16.7%) hypermethylation of the BRCA1 promoter. Overall, 12 patients (40.0%) showed BRCA deficit (BD), due to inactivation of both alleles of either BRCA1 or BRCA2, while 18 (60.0%) had undetected/unclear BRCA deficit (BU). Regarding sequence changes, analysis performed on Formalin-Fixed-Paraffin-Embedded tissue through a validated diagnostic protocol showed 100% accuracy, compared with 96.3% for Snap-Frozen tissue and 77.8% for the pre-diagnostic Formalin-Fixed-Paraffin-Embedded protocol. BD tumors, compared to BU, showed a significantly higher rate of small genomic rearrangements. After a median follow-up of 60.3 months, the mean PFS was 54.9 ± 27.2 months in BD patients and 34.6 ± 26.7 months in BU patients (p = 0.055). The analysis of other cancer genes in BU patients identified a carrier of a pathogenic germline variant in RAD51C. Thus, BRCA sequencing alone may miss tumors potentially responsive to specific treatments (due to BRCA1 promoter methylation or mutations in other genes) while unvalidated FFPE approaches may yield false-positive results.

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

Background: Detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes poses relevant challenges for counseling and managing patients. VUS carriers should be managed similarly to probands with no BRCA1/2 variants detected, and predictive genetic testing in relatives is discouraged. However, miscomprehension of VUSs is common and can lead to inaccurate risk perception and biased decisions about prophylactic surgery. Therefore, efforts are needed to improve VUS evaluation and communication at an individual level. Aims: We aimed at investigating whether cosegregation analysis, integrated with a careful review of available functional data and in silico predictions, may improve VUSs interpretation and counseling in individual families. Methods: Patients with Breast Cancer (BC) and/or Ovarian Cancer (OC) fulfilling established criteria were offered genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 testing; VUSs identified in index cases were checked in other relatives affected by BC/OC whenever possible. As an alternative, if BC/OC clustered only in one branch of the family, the parental origin of the VUS was investigated. Public prediction tools and databases were used to collect additional information on the variants analyzed. Results: Out of 1045 patients undergoing BRCA1/2 testing in the period October 2011-April 2018, 66 (6.3%) carried class 3 VUSs. Cosegregation analysis was performed for 13 VUSs in 11 kindreds. Seven VUSs (53.8%) did not cosegregate with breast/ovarian cancer in the family, which provided evidence against their role in cancer clustering in those families. Among the 6 cosegregating VUSs, for two (BRCA1 c.5152+2T>G and BRCA2 c.7975A>G) additional evidence exists from databases and in silico tools supporting their pathogenicity, which reinforces the hypothesis they may have had a predisposing effect in respective families. For the remaining four VUSs (31%), cosegregation analysis failed to provide relevant information. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that cosegregation analysis in a clinical context may be helpful to improve test result interpretation in the specific family and, therefore, should be offered whenever possible. Besides, obtaining and sharing cosegregation data helps gathering evidence that may eventually contribute to VUS classification.