Clinical implications of incorporating genetic and non-genetic risk factors in CanRisk-based breast cancer risk prediction.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation with polygenic risk score (PRS) and non-genetic risk factor (NGRFs) data affects individual intensified breast surveillance (IBS) recommendations according to European guidelines. METHODS: For 425 cancer-free women with cancer FH (mean age 40·6 years, range 21-74), recruited in France, Germany and the Netherlands, germline PV status, NGRFs, and a 306 variant-based PRS (PRS306) were assessed to calculate estimated lifetime risks (eLTR) and estimated 10-year risks (e10YR) using CanRisk. The proportions of women changing country-specific European risk categories for IBS recommendations, i.e. ≥20 % and ≥30 % eLTR, or ≥5 % e10YR were determined. FINDINGS: Of the women with non-informative PV status, including PRS306 and NGRFs changed clinical recommendations for 31·0 %, (57/184, 20 % eLTR), 15·8 % (29/184, 30 % eLTR) and 22·4 % (41/183, 5 % e10YR), respectively whereas of the women tested negative for a PV observed in their family, clinical recommendations changed for 16·7 % (25/150), 1·3 % (2/150) and 9·5 % (14/147). No change was observed for 82 women with PVs in high-risk genes (BRCA1/2, PALB2). Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs identified BRCA1/2 PV carriers benefitting from IBS <30 years, and women tested non-informative/negative for whom IBS may be postponed. INTERPRETATION: For women who tested non-informative/negative, PRS and NGRFs have a considerable impact on IBS recommendations. Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs allows personalizing IBS starting age. FUNDING: Horizon 2020, German Cancer Aid, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Köln Fortune.

Breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and noncarriers under prospective intensified surveillance.

Comparably little is known about breast cancer (BC) risks in women from families tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations despite an indicative family history, as opposed to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We determined the age-dependent risks of first and contralateral breast cancer (FBC, CBC) both in noncarriers and carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, who participated in an intensified breast imaging surveillance program. The study was conducted between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2017, at 12 university centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Two cohorts were prospectively followed up for incident FBC (n = 4,380; 16,398 person-years [PY], median baseline age: 39 years) and CBC (n = 2,993; 10,090 PY, median baseline age: 42 years). Cumulative FBC risk at age 60 was 61.8% (95% CI 52.8-70.9%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 43.2% (95% CI 32.1-56.3%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 15.7% (95% CI 11.9-20.4%) for noncarriers. FBC risks were significantly higher than in the general population, with incidence rate ratios of 23.9 (95% CI 18.9-29.8) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 13.5 (95% CI 9.2-19.1) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 4.9 (95% CI 3.8-6.3) for BRCA1/2 noncarriers. Cumulative CBC risk 10 years after FBC was 25.1% (95% CI 19.6-31.9%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 6.6% (95% CI 3.4-12.5%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 3.6% (95% CI 2.2-5.7%) for noncarriers. CBC risk in noncarriers was similar to women with unilateral BC from the general population. Further studies are needed to confirm whether less intensified surveillance is justified in women from BRCA1/2 negative families with elevated risk.

Biallelic germline BRCA1 mutations in a patient with early onset breast cancer, mild Fanconi anemia-like phenotype, and no chromosome fragility.

BACKGROUND: Biallelic BRCA1 mutations are regarded either embryonically lethal or to cause Fanconi anemia (FA), a genomic instability syndrome characterized by bone marrow failure, developmental abnormalities, and cancer predisposition. We report biallelic BRCA1 mutations c.181T > G (p.Cys61Gly) and c.5096G > A (p.Arg1699Gln) in a woman with breast cancer diagnosed at the age of 30 years. The common European founder mutation p.Cys61Gly confers high cancer risk, whereas the deleterious p.Arg1699Gln is hypomorphic and was suggested to confer intermediate cancer risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: Aside from significant toxicity from chemotherapy, the patient showed mild FA-like features (e.g., short stature, microcephaly, skin hyperpigmentation). Chromosome fragility, a hallmark of FA patient cells, was not present in patient-derived peripheral blood lymphocytes. We demonstrated that the p.Arg1699Gln mutation impairs DNA double-strand break repair, elevates RAD51 foci levels at baseline, and compromises BRCA1 protein function in protecting from replication stress. Although the p.Arg1699Gln mutation compromises BRCA1 function, the residual activity of the p.Arg1699Gln allele likely prevents from chromosome fragility and a more severe FA phenotype. CONCLUSION: Our data expand the clinical spectrum associated with biallelic BRCA1 mutations, ranging from embryonic lethality to a mild FA-like phenotype and no chromosome fragility.

Expanded clinical spectrum in hepatocyte nuclear factor 1b-maturity-onset diabetes of the young.

AIMS: HNF1B-maturity-onset diabetes of the young is caused by abnormalities in the HNF1B gene encoding the transcription factor HNF-1beta. We aimed to investigate detailed clinical features and the type of HNF1B gene anomaly in five pediatric cases with HNF1B-MODY. METHODS: From a cohort of 995 children and adolescents with diabetes, we analyzed the most frequent maturity-onset diabetes of the young genes (GCK, HNF1A, HNF4A) including HNF1B sequencing and deletion analysis by quantitative Multiplex-PCR of Short Fluorescent Fragments (QMPSF) if patients were islet autoantibody-negative and had one parent with diabetes or associated extrapancreatic features or detectable C-peptide outside honeymoon phase. Presence and size of disease-causing chromosomal rearrangements detected by QMPSF were further analyzed by array comparative genomic hybridization. RESULTS: Overall, five patients had a heterozygous HNF1B deletion, presenting renal disease, elevated liver enzymes, and diabetes. Diabetes was characterized by insulin resistance and adolescent onset of hyperglycemia. Additionally, clinical features in some patients were pancreas dysplasia and exocrine insufficiency (two of five patients), genital defects (three of five), mental retardation (two of five), and eye abnormalities (coloboma, cataract in two of five). One case also had severe growth deficit combined with congenital cholestasis, and another case had common variable immune deficiency. All patients reported here had monoallelic loss of the entire HNF1B gene. Whole genome array comparative genomic hybridization confirmed a precurrent genomic deletion of approximately 1.3-1.7 Mb in size. CONCLUSION: The clinical data of our cases enlarge the wide spectrum of patients with HNF1B anomaly. The underlying molecular defect in all cases was a 1.3- to 1.7-Mb deletion, and paired, segmental duplications along with breakpoints were most likely involved in this recurrent chromosomal microdeletion.

A case of new mutation in maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 3 (MODY 3) responsive to a low dose of sulphonylurea.

We describe a girl aged 10.5 years with hyperglycemia, whose mother and maternal father had insulin treated diabetes since adolescence. Using genetic analysis in mother and child, we identified identical new mutation of the HNF-1alpha sequence. Treatment with small doses of sulphonylurea was initiated and that therapy gave good results.