Double somatic SMARCB1 and NF2 mutations in sporadic spinal schwannoma.

In sporadic schwannomas, inactivation of both copies of the NF2 tumor suppressor gene on 22q is common. Constitutional mutations of SMARCB1 are responsible of schwannomatosis, an inherited tumor predisposition syndrome, characterized by the development of multiple schwannomas. We analysed the frequency of copy number changes on chromosome 22 and the mutation of NF2 and SMARCB1 in 26 sporadic schwannomas. We found two spinal schwannomas with an identical somatic missense mutation in SMARCB1 exon 9: p.(Arg377His). Both SMARCB1 mutated schwannomas had LOH of 22q and one of them harbored an inactivating mutation of NF2. The p.(Arg377His) change was not found in a series of 28 vestibular schwannomas. Our data indicate that mutations affecting SMARCB1 play a role in the development or progression of a small subset of spinal schwannomas and that biallelic inactivation of SMARCB1 may cooperate with deficiency of NF2 function in schwannoma tumorigenesis according to the "four-hit/three events" mechanism of tumorigenesis that we demonstrated in schwannomatosis-associated schwannomas.

FANCM c.5791C>T nonsense mutation (rs144567652) induces exon skipping, affects DNA repair activity and is a familial breast cancer risk factor.

Numerous genetic factors that influence breast cancer risk are known. However, approximately two-thirds of the overall familial risk remain unexplained. To determine whether some of the missing heritability is due to rare variants conferring high to moderate risk, we tested for an association between the c.5791C>T nonsense mutation (p.Arg1931*; rs144567652) in exon 22 of FANCM gene and breast cancer. An analysis of genotyping data from 8635 familial breast cancer cases and 6625 controls from different countries yielded an association between the c.5791C>T mutation and breast cancer risk [odds ratio (OR) = 3.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-12.11; P = 0.017)]. Moreover, we performed two meta-analyses of studies from countries with carriers in both cases and controls and of all available data. These analyses showed breast cancer associations with OR = 3.67 (95% CI = 1.04-12.87; P = 0.043) and OR = 3.33 (95% CI = 1.09-13.62; P = 0.032), respectively. Based on information theory-based prediction, we established that the mutation caused an out-of-frame deletion of exon 22, due to the creation of a binding site for the pre-mRNA processing protein hnRNP A1. Furthermore, genetic complementation analyses showed that the mutation influenced the DNA repair activity of the FANCM protein. In summary, we provide evidence for the first time showing that the common p.Arg1931* loss-of-function variant in FANCM is a risk factor for familial breast cancer.

A mosaic pattern of INI1/SMARCB1 protein expression distinguishes Schwannomatosis and NF2-associated peripheral schwannomas from solitary peripheral schwannomas and NF2-associated vestibular schwannomas.

BACKGROUND: The INI1/SMARCB1 gene protein product has been implicated in the direct pathogenesis of schwannomas from patients with one form of schwannomatosis [SWNTS1; MIM # 162091] showing a mosaic pattern of loss of protein expression by immunohistochemistry [93% in familial vs. 55% in sporadic cases]. AIM OF STUDY: To verify whether such INI1/SMARCB1 mosaic pattern could be extended to all schwannomas arising in the sporadic and familial schwannomatoses [i.e. to SMARCB1-related (SWNTS1) or LZTR1-related (SWNTS2) schwannomatosis or to SMARCB1/LZTR1-negative schwannomatosis] and whether it could be involved in classical NF2 or solitary peripheral schwannomas METHODS: We blindly analysed schwannoma samples obtained from a total of 22 patients including (a) 2 patients (2 males; aged 38 and 55 years) affected by non-familial SMARCB1-associated schwannomatosis (SWTNS1); (b) 1 patient (1 female; aged 33 years) affected by familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS1/ SMARCB1 germ line mutations); (c) 5 patients (3 males, 2 females; aged 33 to 35 years) affected by non-familial (sporadic) LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis (SWNTS2); (d) 3 patients (3 males; aged 35 to 47 years) affected by familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS2/ LZTR1 germ line mutations); (e) 2 patients (1 male, 1 female; aged 63 and 49 years, respectively) affected by non-familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS, negative for SMARCB1, LZTR1 and NF2 gene mutations); (f) 4 patients (3 males, 1 females; aged 15 to 24 years) affected by classical NF2 (NF2: harbouring NF2 germ line mutations; and (g) 5 patients (3 males, 2 females; aged 33 to 68 years) who had solitary schwannomas. [follow-up = 15-30 years; negative for constitutional/somatic mutation analysis for the SMARCB1, LZTR1 and NF2 genes] were (blindly) analyzed. The INI1/SMARCB1 immunostaining pattern was regarded as (1) diffuse positive nuclear staining [= retained expression] or (2) mosaic pattern [mixed positive/negative nuclei = loss of expression in a subset of tumour cells]. RESULTS: All solitary peripheral schwannomas and NF2-associated vestibular schwannomas showed diffuse nuclear INI1/SMARCB1 staining in 97-100% of neoplastic cells; schwannomas obtained from all cases of non-familial and familial schwannomatosis and NF2-associated non-vestibular schwannomas showed a mosaic pattern ranging from 10 to 70% of INI1/SMARCB1-positive expression. We did not record a complete lack of nuclear staining. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggests that (a) mosaic loss of immunohistochemical INI1/SMARCB1 expression, despite the interlesional variability, is a reliable marker of schwannomatosis regardless of the involved gene and it might help in the differential diagnosis of schwannomatosis vs. solitary schwannomas and (b) INI1/SMARCB1 expression is not useful in the differential with mosaic NF2, since NF2-associated peripheral schwannomas show the same immunohistochemical pattern.

Evaluation of a Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Detection.

The efficiency of a novel targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) test, the Devyser BRCA kit, for a comprehensive analysis of all 48 coding exons of the high-risk breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been assessed. The new assay intended to detect nucleotide substitutions, small deletions/insertions, and large deletions/duplications. To document the false-negative and false-positive rates of the NGS assay in the hands of end users, 48 samples with previously identified 444 small variants and seven gross rearrangements were analyzed, showing 100% concordance with gold standards. Furthermore, all other 43 variants (42 single-nucleotide variation or insertion/deletion variation and one copy number variation, whose significance is or may be of clinical value), which were called by the NGS assay in a prospectively analyzed 179-sample set, were confirmed by Sanger sequencing or multiplex ligation probe amplification, according to their nature. We conclude that the Devyser BRCA kit performed satisfactorily for use in a clinical laboratory.

Genetic Testing and Clinical Management Practices for Variants in Non-BRCA1/2 Breast (and Breast/Ovarian) Cancer Susceptibility Genes: An International Survey by the Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) Clinical Working Group.

PURPOSE: To describe a snapshot of international genetic testing practices, specifically regarding the use of multigene panels, for hereditary breast/ovarian cancers. We conducted a survey through the Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium, covering questions about 16 non-BRCA1/2 genes. METHODS: Data were collected via in-person and paper/electronic surveys. ENIGMA members from around the world were invited to participate. Additional information was collected via country networks in the United Kingdom and in Italy. RESULTS: Responses from 61 cancer genetics practices across 20 countries showed that 16 genes were tested by > 50% of the centers, but only six (PALB2, TP53, PTEN, CHEK2, ATM, and BRIP1) were tested regularly. US centers tested the genes most often, whereas United Kingdom and Italian centers with no direct ENIGMA affiliation at the time of the survey were the least likely to regularly test them. Most centers tested the 16 genes through multigene panels; some centers tested TP53, PTEN, and other cancer syndrome-associated genes individually. Most centers reported (likely) pathogenic variants to patients and would test family members for such variants. Gene-specific guidelines for breast and ovarian cancer risk management were limited and differed among countries, especially with regard to starting age and type of imaging and risk-reducing surgery recommendations. CONCLUSION: Currently, a small number of genes beyond BRCA1/2 are routinely analyzed worldwide, and management guidelines are limited and largely based on expert opinion. To attain clinical implementation of multigene panel testing through evidence-based management practices, it is paramount that clinicians (and patients) participate in international initiatives that share panel testing data, interpret sequence variants, and collect prospective data to underpin risk estimates and evaluate the outcome of risk intervention strategies.

A Systematic Assessment of Accuracy in Detecting Somatic Mosaic Variants by Deep Amplicon Sequencing: Application to NF2 Gene.

The accurate detection of low-allelic variants is still challenging, particularly for the identification of somatic mosaicism, where matched control sample is not available. High throughput sequencing, by the simultaneous and independent analysis of thousands of different DNA fragments, might overcome many of the limits of traditional methods, greatly increasing the sensitivity. However, it is necessary to take into account the high number of false positives that may arise due to the lack of matched control samples. Here, we applied deep amplicon sequencing to the analysis of samples with known genotype and variant allele fraction (VAF) followed by a tailored statistical analysis. This method allowed to define a minimum value of VAF for detecting mosaic variants with high accuracy. Then, we exploited the estimated VAF to select candidate alterations in NF2 gene in 34 samples with unknown genotype (30 blood and 4 tumor DNAs), demonstrating the suitability of our method. The strategy we propose optimizes the use of deep amplicon sequencing for the identification of low abundance variants. Moreover, our method can be applied to different high throughput sequencing approaches to estimate the background noise and define the accuracy of the experimental design.