Non-BRCA1/BRCA2 high-risk familial breast cancers are not associated with a high prevalence of BRCAness.

BACKGROUND: Familial breast cancer is in most cases unexplained due to the lack of identifiable pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The somatic mutational landscape and in particular the extent of BRCA-like tumour features (BRCAness) in these familial breast cancers where germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have not been identified is to a large extent unknown. METHODS: We performed whole-genome sequencing on matched tumour and normal samples from high-risk non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer families to understand the germline and somatic mutational landscape and mutational signatures. We measured BRCAness using HRDetect. As a comparator, we also analysed samples from BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers. RESULTS: We noted for non-BRCA1/BRCA2 tumours, only a small proportion displayed high HRDetect scores and were characterized by concomitant promoter hypermethylation or in one case a RAD51D splice variant previously reported as having unknown significance to potentially explain their BRCAness. Another small proportion showed no features of BRCAness but had mutationally active tumours. The remaining tumours lacked features of BRCAness and were mutationally quiescent. CONCLUSIONS: A limited fraction of high-risk familial non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer patients is expected to benefit from treatment strategies against homologue repair deficient cancer cells.

Risks of breast and ovarian cancer for women harboring pathogenic missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 compared with those harboring protein truncating variants.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants has been a part of clinical practice for >2 decades. However, no studies have compared the cancer risks associated with missense pathogenic variants (PVs) with those associated with protein truncating (PTC) variants. METHODS: We collected 582 informative pedigrees segregating 1 of 28 missense PVs in BRCA1 and 153 pedigrees segregating 1 of 12 missense PVs in BRCA2. We analyzed 324 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA1 and 214 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA2. Cancer risks were estimated using modified segregation analysis. RESULTS: Estimated breast cancer risks were markedly lower for women aged >50 years carrying BRCA1 missense PVs than for the women carrying BRCA1 PTC variants (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.9 [2.4-6.2] for PVs vs 12.8 [5.7-28.7] for PTC variants; P = .01), particularly for missense PVs in the BRCA1 C-terminal domain (HR = 2.8 [1.4-5.6]; P = .005). In case of BRCA2, for women aged >50 years, the HR was 3.9 (2.0-7.2) for those heterozygous for missense PVs compared with 7.0 (3.3-14.7) for those harboring PTC variants. BRCA1 p.[Cys64Arg] and BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] were associated with particularly low risks of breast cancer compared with other PVs. CONCLUSION: These results have important implications for the counseling of at-risk women who harbor missense PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes.

Chromosomal Aberrations in Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins Versus Singletons in Denmark During 1968-2009.

BACKGROUND: Hall (Embryologic development and monozygotic twinning. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, Vol. 45, 1996, pp. 53-57) hypothesized that chromosomal aberrations can lead to monozygotic (MZ) twinning. However, twinning and chromosomal aberrations increase prenatal mortality and could reduce the prevalence of chromosomal aberrations in live-born twins. We compared prevalence proportion ratios (PPR) of chromosomal aberrations and trisomy 21 (T21) in live-born twins versus singletons born in Denmark during 1968-2009. METHODS: We linked the Danish Twin Registry and a 5% random sample of all singletons to the Danish Cytogenetic Central Register and calculated PPR adjusted for maternal age for MZ, dizygotic (DZ), and all twins versus singletons. Zygosity was based on questionnaires or genetic markers. RESULTS: No overall difference in risk of chromosomal aberrations or T21 in twins versus singletons was found. PPR in MZ and DZ twins was 0.87 (95% CI [0.60, 1.27]) and 1.05 (95% CI [0.88, 1.27]), respectively. For T21 there was a tendency to a lower prevalence in MZ twins compared to singletons (PPR: 0.29, 95% CI [0.07, 1.14]), whereas PPR was significantly increased in DZ twins (1.62, 95% CI [1.20, 2.19]). The observed proportion of MZ twin pairs among twin pairs with aberrations (0.22, 95% CI [0.16, 0.28]) was significantly lower than the proportion expected from the Weinberg method (0.32, 95% CI [CI, 0.26, 0.39]). CONCLUSION: Based on databases providing complete national coverage on twins with chromosomal aberrations, we found no overall difference in risk of chromosomal aberrations or T21 in twins versus singletons. Around conception twins may have an increased risk of chromosomal aberrations, but loss of especially MZ embryos could lead to similar risk among live-born twins and singletons.