Optimized whole-genome sequencing workflow for tumor diagnostics in routine pathology practice.

Two decades after the genomics revolution, oncology is rapidly transforming into a genome-driven discipline, yet routine cancer diagnostics is still mainly microscopy based, except for tumor type-specific predictive molecular tests. Pathology laboratories struggle to quickly validate and adopt biomarkers identified by genomics studies of new targeted therapies. Consequently, clinical implementation of newly approved biomarkers suffers substantial delays, leading to unequal patient access to these therapies. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can successfully address these challenges by providing a stable molecular diagnostic platform that allows detection of a multitude of genomic alterations in a single cost-efficient assay and facilitating rapid implementation, as well as by the development of new genomic biomarkers. Recently, the Whole-genome sequencing Implementation in standard Diagnostics for Every cancer patient (WIDE) study demonstrated that WGS is a feasible and clinically valid technique in routine clinical practice with a turnaround time of 11 workdays. As a result, WGS was successfully implemented at the Netherlands Cancer Institute as part of routine diagnostics in January 2021. The success of implementing WGS has relied on adhering to a comprehensive protocol including recording patient information, sample collection, shipment and storage logistics, sequencing data interpretation and reporting, integration into clinical decision-making and data usage. This protocol describes the use of fresh-frozen samples that are necessary for WGS but can be challenging to implement in pathology laboratories accustomed to using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. In addition, the protocol outlines key considerations to guide uptake of WGS in routine clinical care in hospitals worldwide.

Impact of genetic counseling strategy on diagnostic yield and workload for genome-sequencing-based tumor diagnostics.

PURPOSE: Genome sequencing (GS) enables comprehensive molecular analysis of tumors and identification of hereditary cancer predisposition. According to guidelines, directly determining pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) requires pretest genetic counseling, which is cost-ineffective. Referral for genetic counseling based on tumor variants alone could miss relevant PGVs and/or result in unnecessary referrals. METHODS: We validated GS for detection of germline variants and simulated 3 strategies using paired tumor-normal GS data of 937 metastatic patients. In strategy-1, genetic counseling before tumor testing allowed direct PGV analysis. In strategy-2 and -3, germline testing and referral for post-test genetic counseling is based on tumor variants using Dutch (strategy-2) or Europen Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group (strategy-3) guidelines. RESULTS: In strategy-1, PGVs would be detected in 50 patients (number-needed-to counsel; NTC = 18.7). In strategy-2, 86 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 43 would have PGVs (NTC = 2). In strategy-3, 94 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 32 would have PGVs (NTC = 2.9). Hence, 43 and 62 patients, respectively, were unnecessarily referred based on a somatic variant. CONCLUSION: Both post-tumor test counseling strategies (2 and 3) had significantly lower NTC, and strategy-2 had the highest PGV yield. Combining pre-tumor test mainstreaming and post-tumor test counseling may maximize the clinically relevant PGV yield and minimize unnecessary referrals.

Does a proactive procedure lead to a higher uptake of predictive testing in families with a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variant? A family cancer clinic evaluation.

The uptake of genetic counseling and predictive genetic testing by family members at risk for hereditary tumor syndromes is generally below 50%. To address this issue, a new guideline was introduced in the Netherlands in 2019 that aims to improve the sharing of information within families. In addition to cascade screening supported by follow-up telephone calls with the proband, municipal records were accessed to allow the geneticist to contact at-risk family members directly. We evaluated this procedure in 32 families with a (likely) pathogenic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 variant diagnosed at our hospital between May 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, comparing current uptake with outcomes achieved for 33 families diagnosed in 2014. Fifteen months after diagnostic testing of the proband, the uptake was 43% (120/277), comparable to the 44% (87/200) registered previously. Among a subgroup of women at 50% risk aged 25-75 years, 71% (47/66) were tested, comparable to an earlier uptake of 69% (59/86). Of the 34 at-risk relatives we contacted directly, 17 (50%) underwent predictive testing. In conclusion, we found no evidence that the new procedure leads to a substantially increased uptake. Future research should be primarily aimed at understanding intrafamilial communication barriers.

Identifying the BRCA1 c.-107A > T variant in Dutch patients with a tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation.

An inherited single nucleotide variant (SNV) in the 5'UTR of the BRCA1 gene c.-107A > T was identified to be related to BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation and a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer phenotype in two UK families. We investigated whether this BRCA1 variant was also present in a Dutch cohort of breast and ovarian cancer patients with tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation. We selected all breast and ovarian cancer cases that tested positive for tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation at the Netherlands Cancer Institute and Sanger sequenced the specific mutation in the tumor DNA. In total, we identified 193 tumors with BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation in 178 unique patients. The wild-type allele was identified in 100% (193/193) of sequenced tumor samples. In a large cohort of 178 patients, none had tumors harboring the previously identified c.-107A > T SNV in BRCA1. We therefore can conclude that the germline SNV is not pervasive in patients with tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation.

A likelihood ratio approach for utilizing case-control data in the clinical classification of rare sequence variants: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2.

A large number of variants identified through clinical genetic testing in disease susceptibility genes, are of uncertain significance (VUS). Following the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), the frequency in case-control datasets (PS4 criterion), can inform their interpretation. We present a novel case-control likelihood ratio-based method that incorporates gene-specific age-related penetrance. We demonstrate the utility of this method in the analysis of simulated and real datasets. In the analyses of simulated data, the likelihood ratio method was more powerful compared to other methods. Likelihood ratios were calculated for a case-control dataset of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), and compared with logistic regression results. A larger number of variants reached evidence in favor of pathogenicity, and a substantial number of variants had evidence against pathogenicity - findings that would not have been reached using other case-control analysis methods. Our novel method provides greater power to classify rare variants compared to classical case-control methods. As an initiative from the ENIGMA Analytical Working Group, we provide user-friendly scripts and pre-formatted excel calculators for implementation of the method for rare variants in BRCA1, BRCA2 and other high-risk genes with known penetrance.

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.

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.

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.

The predictive ability of the 313 variant-based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant-based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes. METHODS: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk. RESULTS: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06-1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07-1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making.

BRCAness digitalMLPA profiling predicts benefit of intensified platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative and luminal-type breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that BRCA-like profiles can be used to preselect individuals with the highest risk of carrying BRCA mutations but could also indicate which patients would benefit from double-strand break inducing chemotherapy. A simple, robust, and reliable assay for clinical use that utilizes limited amounts of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue to assess BRCAness status in both ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer (BC) is currently lacking. METHODS: A digital multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (digitalMLPA) assay was designed to detect copy number alterations required for the classification of BRCA1-like and BRCA2-like BC. The BRCA1-like classifier was trained on 71 tumors, enriched for triple-negative BC; the BRCA2-like classifier was trained on 55 tumors, enriched for luminal-type BC. A shrunken centroid-based classifier was developed and applied on an independent validation cohort. A total of 114 cases of a randomized controlled trial were analyzed, and the association of the classifier result with intensified platinum-based chemotherapy response was assessed. RESULTS: The digitalMLPA BRCA1-like classifier correctly classified 91% of the BRCA1-like samples and 82% of the BRCA2-like samples. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor derived significant benefit of high-dose chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.44) which was not observed in non-BRCA-like patients (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.37-2.18) (p = 0.01). Analysis stratified for ER status showed borderline significance. CONCLUSIONS: The digitalMLPA is a reliable method to detect a BRCA1- and BRCA2-like pattern on clinical samples and predicts platinum-based chemotherapy benefit in both triple-negative and luminal-type BC.

Characterization of the Cancer Spectrum in Men With Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants: Results From the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

Importance: The limited data on cancer phenotypes in men with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) have hampered the development of evidence-based recommendations for early cancer detection and risk reduction in this population. Objective: To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures: BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview. Results: Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P < .001), as well as developing 2 (OR, 7.97; 95% CI, 5.47-11.60; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 19.60; 95% CI, 4.64-82.89; P < .001) primary tumors. A higher frequency of breast (OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 4.06-7.37; P < .001) and prostate (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P = .008) cancers was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2 PV carrier. Among cancers other than breast and prostate, pancreatic cancer was associated with a higher probability (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.55-5.81; P = .001) and colorectal cancer with a lower probability (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78; P = .003) of being a BRCA2 PV carrier. Conclusions and Relevance: Significant differences in the cancer spectrum were observed in male BRCA2, compared with BRCA1, PV carriers. These data may inform future recommendations for surveillance of BRCA1/2-associated cancers and guide future prospective studies for estimating cancer risks in men with BRCA1/2 PVs.

Clustering of known low and moderate risk alleles rather than a novel recessive high-risk gene in non-BRCA1/2 sib trios affected with breast cancer.

Breast cancer risk is approximately twice as high in first-degree relatives of female breast cancer cases than in women in the general population. Less than half of this risk can be attributed to the currently known genetic risk factors. Recessive risk alleles represent a relatively underexplored explanation for the remainder of familial risk. To address this, we selected 19 non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families in which at least three siblings were affected, while no first-degree relatives of the previous or following generation had breast cancer. Germline DNA from one of the siblings was subjected to exome sequencing, while all affected siblings were genotyped using SNP arrays to assess haplotype sharing and to calculate a polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 160 low-risk variants. We found no convincing candidate recessive alleles among exome sequencing variants in genomic regions for which all three siblings shared two haplotypes. However, we found two families in which all affected siblings carried the CHEK2*1100delC. In addition, the average normalized PRS of the "recessive" family probands (0.81) was significantly higher than that in both general population cases (0.35, P = .026) and controls (P = .0004). These findings suggest that the familial aggregation is, at least in part, explained by a polygenic effect of common low-risk variants and rarer intermediate-risk variants, while we did not find evidence of a role for novel recessive risk alleles.

The uptake of predictive DNA testing in 40 families with a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variant. An evaluation of the proband-mediated procedure.

When hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) due to a BRCA1/BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant is diagnosed, the proband will be asked to inform other at-risk family members. In the Netherlands, a guideline was introduced in 2012 which provided detailed recommendations regarding this proband-mediated procedure. We now evaluated the uptake of predictive BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in 40 consecutive HBOC families diagnosed in our centre in 2014. We performed a retrospective observational study of all 40 families in which a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 germline variant was identified during 2014. We scored the uptake of predictive and confirmatory testing by the end of 2018 and explored factors associated with the level of uptake. Two families were excluded. In the remaining 38 families, among 239 family members ≥18 years at 50% risk of being a mutation carrier or at 25% risk if the family member at 50% risk was deceased, 102 (43%) were tested. Among 108 females 25-75 years of age at 50% risk, 59 (55%) underwent predictive or confirmatory testing, and among 43 males at 50% risk with daughters ≥18 years, 22 (51%) were tested. Factors which complicated cascade screening included family members living abroad, probands not wanting to share information and limited pedigree information. In conclusion, the standard proband-mediated procedure of informing relatives seems to be far from optimal. We suggest a tailored approach for each family, including the option of a direct approach to at-risk family members by the geneticist. In addition, we suggest detailed monitoring and follow-up of families.

Correction: Evaluation of copy-number variants as modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers.

This Article was originally published under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, but has now been made available under a CC BY 4.0 license. The PDF and HTML versions of the Article have been modified accordingly.

Clinical testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2: a worldwide snapshot of technological practices.

Clinical testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 began over 20 years ago. With the expiration and overturning of the BRCA patents, limitations on which laboratories could offer commercial testing were lifted. These legal changes occurred approximately the same time as the widespread adoption of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technologies. Little is known about how these changes impacted laboratory practices for detecting genetic alterations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes. Therefore, we sought to examine current laboratory genetic testing practices for BRCA1/BRCA2. We employed an online survey of 65 questions covering four areas: laboratory characteristics, details on technological methods, variant classification, and client-support information. Eight United States (US) laboratories and 78 non-US laboratories completed the survey. Most laboratories (93%; 80/86) used MPS platforms to identify variants. Laboratories differed widely on: (1) technologies used for large rearrangement detection; (2) criteria for minimum read depths; (3) non-coding regions sequenced; (4) variant classification criteria and approaches; (5) testing volume ranging from 2 to 2.5 × 105 tests annually; and (6) deposition of variants into public databases. These data may be useful for national and international agencies to set recommendations for quality standards for BRCA1/BRCA2 clinical testing. These standards could also be applied to testing of other disease genes.

Evaluation of copy-number variants as modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers.

Genome-wide studies of patients carrying pathogenic variants (mutations) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have reported strong associations between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and cancer risk. To conduct the first genome-wide association analysis of copy-number variants (CNVs) with breast or ovarian cancer risk in a cohort of 2500 BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers, CNV discovery was performed using multiple calling algorithms and Illumina 610k SNP array data from a previously published genome-wide association study. Our analysis, which focused on functionally disruptive genomic deletions overlapping gene regions, identified a number of loci associated with risk of breast or ovarian cancer for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Despite only including putative deletions called by at least two or more algorithms, detection of selected CNVs by ancillary molecular technologies only confirmed 40% of predicted common (>1% allele frequency) variants. These include four loci that were associated (unadjusted P<0.05) with breast cancer (GTF2H2, ZNF385B, NAALADL2 and PSG5), and two loci associated with ovarian cancer (CYP2A7 and OR2A1). An interesting finding from this study was an association of a validated CNV deletion at the CYP2A7 locus (19q13.2) with decreased ovarian cancer risk (relative risk=0.50, P=0.007). Genomic analysis found this deletion coincides with a region displaying strong regulatory potential in ovarian tissue, but not in breast epithelial cells. This study highlighted the need to verify CNVs in vitro, but also provides evidence that experimentally validated CNVs (with plausible biological consequences) can modify risk of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers.

BRCA1-Mutated Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Shows BRCAness, Suggesting Sensitivity to Drugs Targeting Homologous Recombination Deficiency.

Purpose: As estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers arises at an older age with less aggressive tumor characteristics than ER-negative (ER-) BRCA1-mutated breast cancer, it has been suggested that these tumors are "sporadic" and not BRCA1 driven. With the introduction of targeted treatments specific for tumors with a nonfunctioning BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, the question whether the BRCA genes are impaired in the tumor is highly relevant. Therefore, we performed genomic profiling of BRCA1-mutated ER+ tumors.Experimental Design: Genomic profiling, BRCA1 promoter methylation assessment, and loss of heterozygosity analysis were done on 16 BRCA1-mutated ER+ tumors. Results were compared with 57 BRCA1-mutated ER- tumors, 36 BRCA2-mutated ER+-associated tumors, and 182 sporadic ER+ tumors.Results: The genomic profile of BRCA1-mutated ER+ tumors was different from BRCA1-mutated ER- breast tumors, but highly similar to BRCA2-mutated ER+ tumors. In 83% of the BRCA1-mutated ER+ tumors, loss of the wild-type BRCA1 allele was observed. In addition, clinicopathologic variables in BRCA1-mutated ER+ cancer were also more similar to BRCA2-mutated ER+ and sporadic ER+ breast cancer than to BRCA1-mutated ER- cancers.Conclusions: As BRCA1-mutated ER+ tumors show a BRCAness copy number profile and LOH, it is likely that the loss of a functional BRCA1 protein plays a role in tumorigenesis in BRCA1-mutated ER+ tumors. Therefore, we hypothesize that these tumors are sensitive to drugs targeting the BRCA1 gene defect, providing new targeted treatment modalities for advanced BRCA-deficient, ER+ breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 23(5); 1236-41. ©2016 AACR.

Genetic modifiers of CHEK2*1100delC-associated breast cancer risk.

PURPOSE: CHEK2*1100delC is a founder variant in European populations that confers a two- to threefold increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Epidemiologic and family studies have suggested that the risk associated with CHEK2*1100delC is modified by other genetic factors in a multiplicative fashion. We have investigated this empirically using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). METHODS: Using genotype data from 39,139 (624 1100delC carriers) BC patients and 40,063 (224) healthy controls from 32 BCAC studies, we analyzed the combined risk effects of CHEK2*1100delC and 77 common variants in terms of a polygenic risk score (PRS) and pairwise interaction. RESULTS: The PRS conferred odds ratios (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.21-2.09) per standard deviation for BC for CHEK2*1100delC carriers and 1.58 (1.55-1.62) for noncarriers. No evidence of deviation from the multiplicative model was found. The OR for the highest quintile of the PRS was 2.03 (0.86-4.78) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers, placing them in the high risk category according to UK NICE guidelines. The OR for the lowest quintile was 0.52 (0.16-1.74), indicating a lifetime risk close to the population average. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the multiplicative nature of risk effects conferred by CHEK2*1100delC and the common susceptibility variants. Furthermore, the PRS could identify carriers at a high lifetime risk for clinical actions.Genet Med advance online publication 06 October 2016.

Uptake of prenatal diagnostic testing for retinoblastoma compared to other hereditary cancer syndromes in the Netherlands.

Since the 1980s the genetic cause of many hereditary tumor syndromes has been elucidated. As a consequence, carriers of a deleterious mutation in these genes may opt for prenatal diagnoses (PND). We studied the uptake of prenatal diagnosis for five hereditary cancer syndromes in the Netherlands. Uptake for retinoblastoma (Rb) was compared with uptake for Von Hippel-Lindau disease (VHL), Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC). A questionnaire was completed by all nine DNA-diagnostic laboratories assessing the number of independent mutation-positive families identified from the start of diagnostic testing until May 2013, and the number of PNDs performed for these syndromes within these families. Of 187 families with a known Rb-gene mutation, 22 had performed PND (11.8%), this was significantly higher than uptake for FAP (1.6%) and HBOC (<0.2%). For VHL (6.5%) and LFS (4.9%) the difference was not statistically significant. PND for Rb started 3 years after introduction of diagnostic DNA testing and remained stable over the years. For the other cancer syndromes PND started 10-15 years after the introduction and uptake for PND showed an increase after 2009. We conclude that uptake of PND for Rb was significantly higher than for FAP and HBOC, but not different from VHL and LFS. Early onset, high penetrance, lack of preventive surgery and perceived burden of disease may explain these differences.

PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM rare variants and cancer risk: data from COGS.

BACKGROUND: The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. METHODS: We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. RESULTS: For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10-5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10-8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. CONCLUSIONS: This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.