A Population-Based Study of Genes Previously Implicated in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based estimates of the risk of breast cancer associated with germline pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposition genes are critically needed for risk assessment and management in women with inherited pathogenic variants. METHODS: In a population-based case-control study, we performed sequencing using a custom multigene amplicon-based panel to identify germline pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes among 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (controls) from population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. Associations between pathogenic variants in each gene and the risk of breast cancer were assessed. RESULTS: Pathogenic variants in 12 established breast cancer-predisposition genes were detected in 5.03% of case patients and in 1.63% of controls. Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with a high risk of breast cancer, with odds ratios of 7.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.33 to 11.27) and 5.23 (95% CI, 4.09 to 6.77), respectively. Pathogenic variants in PALB2 were associated with a moderate risk (odds ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 2.68 to 5.63). Pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D were associated with increased risks of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer, whereas pathogenic variants in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 were associated with an increased risk of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Pathogenic variants in 16 candidate breast cancer-predisposition genes, including the c.657_661del5 founder pathogenic variant in NBN, were not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides estimates of the prevalence and risk of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in known breast cancer-predisposition genes in the U.S. population. These estimates can inform cancer testing and screening and improve clinical management strategies for women in the general population with inherited pathogenic variants in these genes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.).

Association of dietary and plasma carotenoids with urinary F2-isoprostanes.

PURPOSE: Carotenoids may protect against chronic diseases including cancer and cardiometabolic disease by mitigating oxidative stress and/or inflammation. We cross-sectionally evaluated associations between carotenoids and biomarkers of oxidative stress or inflammation. METHODS: From 2003 to 2009, the Sister Study enrolled 50,884 breast cancer-free US women aged 35-74. Post-menopausal participants (n = 512) were randomly sampled to measure carotenoids and biomarkers of oxidative stress. Dietary carotenoid consumption was assessed using a validated 110-item Block 1998 food frequency questionnaire; use of ß-carotene-containing supplements was also assessed. Plasma carotenoids were quantified, adjusting for batch. Urinary markers of lipid peroxidation, 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α (8-iso-PGF2α) and its metabolite (8-iso-PGF2α-M) were also measured. Since the biomarker 8-iso-PGF2α can reflect both oxidative stress and inflammation, we used a modeled 8-iso-PGF2α to prostaglandin F2α ratio approach to distinguish effects reflecting oxidative stress versus inflammation. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the associations of dietary and plasma carotenoids with the estimated biomarker concentrations. RESULTS: Total plasma carotenoids were inversely associated with 8-iso-PGF2α-M concentrations (P for trend across quartiles = 0.009). Inverse trends associations were also seen for α-carotene and ß-carotene. In contrast, lutein/zeaxanthin showed associations with both 8-iso-PGF2α and 8-iso-PGF2α-M concentrations. The inverse association for total carotenoids appeared to be specific for oxidative stress (chemical 8-iso-PGF2α; Phighest vs. lowest quartile = 0.04 and P for trend across quartiles = 0.02). The pattern was similar for α-carotene. However, lutein/zeaxanthin tended to have a stronger association with enzymatic 8-iso-PGF2α, suggesting an additional anti-inflammatory effect. Supplemental ß-carotene was inversely associated with both 8-iso-PGF2α and 8-iso-PGF2α-M concentrations, as well as with both chemical and enzymatic 8-iso-PGF2α. Dietary carotenoids were not associated with either biomarker. CONCLUSION: Plasma carotenoids and supplemental ß-carotene were associated with lower concentrations of 8-iso-PGF2α metabolite. Plasma carotenoids associations may reflect antioxidant effects.

Joint association of mammographic density adjusted for age and body mass index and polygenic risk score with breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density, adjusted for age and body mass index, and a polygenic risk score (PRS), comprised of common genetic variation, are both strong risk factors for breast cancer and increase discrimination of risk models. Understanding their joint contribution will be important to more accurately predict risk. METHODS: Using 3628 breast cancer cases and 5126 controls of European ancestry from eight case-control studies, we evaluated joint associations of a 77-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) PRS and quantitative mammographic density measures with breast cancer. Mammographic percent density and absolute dense area were evaluated using thresholding software and examined as residuals after adjusting for age, 1/BMI, and study. PRS and adjusted density phenotypes were modeled both continuously (per 1 standard deviation, SD) and categorically. We fit logistic regression models and tested the null hypothesis of multiplicative joint associations for PRS and adjusted density measures using likelihood ratio and global and tail-based goodness of fit tests within the subset of six cohort or population-based studies. RESULTS: Adjusted percent density (odds ratio (OR) = 1.45 per SD, 95% CI 1.38-1.52), adjusted absolute dense area (OR = 1.34 per SD, 95% CI 1.28-1.41), and the 77-SNP PRS (OR = 1.52 per SD, 95% CI 1.45-1.59) were associated with breast cancer risk. There was no evidence of interaction of the PRS with adjusted percent density or dense area on risk of breast cancer by either the likelihood ratio (P > 0.21) or goodness of fit tests (P > 0.09), whether assessed continuously or categorically. The joint association (OR) was 2.60 in the highest categories of adjusted PD and PRS and 0.34 in the lowest categories, relative to women in the second density quartile and middle PRS quintile. CONCLUSIONS: The combined associations of the 77-SNP PRS and adjusted density measures are generally well described by multiplicative models, and both risk factors provide independent information on breast cancer risk.

Cancer susceptibility gene mutations in type I and II endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of germline cancer predisposition gene mutations in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) subtypes. METHODS: Germline DNA was extracted from whole blood collected from consenting patients undergoing primary surgery for EC between 5/2005 and 11/2016. DNA samples were evaluated by product sequencing from a targeted multiplex PCR panel including 21 known/suspected cancer predisposition genes. Variants were classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic based on allele frequency (<0.003), effects on protein function, and ClinVar assertions. RESULTS: Germline panel testing was performed on 1170 cases of EC; 849 (72.6%) were type I, and 321 (27.4%) were type II EC, including 135 (11.5%) uterine serous cancers (USC). BRCA1 mutations were enriched in Type II EC compared to Type I EC (0.93% vs. 0.12%, p = 0.07). Lynch Syndrome (LS) mutations were identified in 1.4% of type I and 1.6% of type II EC (p = 0.79), including 1.5% for USC. In total, predisposition gene mutations were present in 4.2% of type I and 5.3% of type II EC, as well as 6.7% of patients with USC). CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1/2 and Lynch mutations were rare in this cohort of unselected patients with type I and II EC, including USC. However, the presence of predisposition gene mutations in 4.2% of EC type I, 5.3% of EC type II, and 6.7% of USC suggests that somatic mutation testing should be considered for all EC patients.

Impact of histopathology, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and adjuvant chemotherapy on prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Given its high recurrence risk, guidelines recommend systemic therapy for most patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). While some clinicopathologic factors and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are known to be prognostic in patients receiving chemotherapy, their prognostic implications in systemically untreated patients remain unknown. METHODS: From a cohort of 9982 women with surgically treated non-metastatic breast cancer, all patients with clinically reported ER-negative/borderline (≤10%) disease were selected for central assessment of ER/PR/HER2, histopathology, Ki-67, and TILs. The impact of these parameters on invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Six hundred five patients met the criteria for TNBC (ER/PR < 1% and HER2 negative). Most were T1-2 (95%), N0-1 (86%), grade 3 (88%), and had a Ki-67 >15% (75%). Histologically, 70% were invasive carcinoma of no special type, 16% medullary, 8% metaplastic, and 6% apocrine. The median stromal TIL content was 20%. Four hundred twenty-three (70%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median OS follow-up was 10.6 years. On multivariate analysis, only higher nodal stage, lower TILs, and the absence of adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with worse IDFS and OS. Among systemically untreated patients (n = 182), the 5-year IDFS was 69.9% (95% CI 60.7-80.5) [T1a: 82.5% (95% CI 62.8-100), T1b: 67.5% (95% CI 51.9-87.8) and T1c: 67.3% (95% CI 54.9-82.6)], compared to 77.8% (95% CI 68.3-83.6) for systemically treated T1N0. Nodal stage and TILs remained strongly associated with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In early-stage TNBC, nodal involvement, TILs, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy were independently associated with IDFS and OS. In systemically untreated TNBC, TILs remained prognostic and the risk of recurrence or death was substantial, even for T1N0 disease.

Association Between Inherited Germline Mutations in Cancer Predisposition Genes and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Individuals genetically predisposed to pancreatic cancer may benefit from early detection. Genes that predispose to pancreatic cancer and the risks of pancreatic cancer associated with mutations in these genes are not well defined. Objective: To determine whether inherited germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes are associated with increased risks of pancreatic cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Case-control analysis to identify pancreatic cancer predisposition genes; longitudinal analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer for prognosis. The study included 3030 adults diagnosed as having pancreatic cancer and enrolled in a Mayo Clinic registry between October 12, 2000, and March 31, 2016, with last follow-up on June 22, 2017. Reference controls were 123 136 individuals with exome sequence data in the public Genome Aggregation Database and 53 105 in the Exome Aggregation Consortium database. Exposures: Individuals were classified based on carrying a deleterious mutation in cancer predisposition genes and having a personal or family history of cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Germline mutations in coding regions of 21 cancer predisposition genes were identified by sequencing of products from a custom multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based panel; associations of genes with pancreatic cancer were assessed by comparing frequency of mutations in genes of pancreatic cancer patients with those of reference controls. Results: Comparing 3030 case patients with pancreatic cancer (43.2% female; 95.6% non-Hispanic white; mean age at diagnosis, 65.3 [SD, 10.7] years) with reference controls, significant associations were observed between pancreatic cancer and mutations in CDKN2A (0.3% of cases and 0.02% of controls; odds ratio [OR], 12.33; 95% CI, 5.43-25.61); TP53 (0.2% of cases and 0.02% of controls; OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 2.52-14.95); MLH1 (0.13% of cases and 0.02% of controls; OR, 6.66; 95% CI, 1.94-17.53); BRCA2 (1.9% of cases and 0.3% of controls; OR, 6.20; 95% CI, 4.62-8.17); ATM (2.3% of cases and 0.37% of controls; OR, 5.71; 95% CI, 4.38-7.33); and BRCA1 (0.6% of cases and 0.2% of controls; OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.54-4.05). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, mutations in 6 genes associated with pancreatic cancer were found in 5.5% of all pancreatic cancer patients, including 7.9% of patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer and 5.2% of patients without a family history of pancreatic cancer. Further research is needed for replication in other populations.

Reproductive profiles and risk of breast cancer subtypes: a multi-center case-only study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that reproductive factors are differentially associated with breast cancer (BC) risk by subtypes. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between reproductive factors and BC subtypes, and whether these vary by age at diagnosis. METHODS: We used pooled data on tumor markers (estrogen and progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)) and reproductive risk factors (parity, age at first full-time pregnancy (FFTP) and age at menarche) from 28,095 patients with invasive BC from 34 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). In a case-only analysis, we used logistic regression to assess associations between reproductive factors and BC subtype compared to luminal A tumors as a reference. The interaction between age and parity in BC subtype risk was also tested, across all ages and, because age was modeled non-linearly, specifically at ages 35, 55 and 75 years. RESULTS: Parous women were more likely to be diagnosed with triple negative BC (TNBC) than with luminal A BC, irrespective of age (OR for parity = 1.38, 95% CI 1.16-1.65, p = 0.0004; p for interaction with age = 0.076). Parous women were also more likely to be diagnosed with luminal and non-luminal HER2-like BCs and this effect was slightly more pronounced at an early age (p for interaction with age = 0.037 and 0.030, respectively). For instance, women diagnosed at age 35 were 1.48 (CI 1.01-2.16) more likely to have luminal HER2-like BC than luminal A BC, while this association was not significant at age 75 (OR = 0.72, CI 0.45-1.14). While age at menarche was not significantly associated with BC subtype, increasing age at FFTP was non-linearly associated with TNBC relative to luminal A BC. An age at FFTP of 25 versus 20 years lowered the risk for TNBC (OR = 0.78, CI 0.70-0.88, p < 0.0001), but this effect was not apparent at a later FFTP. CONCLUSIONS: Our main findings suggest that parity is associated with TNBC across all ages at BC diagnosis, whereas the association with luminal HER2-like BC was present only for early onset BC.

Frequency of mutations in a large series of clinically ascertained ovarian cancer cases tested on multi-gene panels compared to reference controls.

OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of adequate screening modalities, knowledge of ovarian cancer risks for carriers of pathogenic alterations in predisposition genes is important for decisions about risk-reduction by salpingo-oophorectomy. We sought to determine which genes assayed on multi-gene panels are associated with ovarian cancer, the magnitude of the associations, and for which clinically meaningful associations could be ruled out. METHODS: 7768 adult ovarian cancer cases of European ancestry referred to a single clinical testing laboratory underwent multi-gene panel testing for detection of pathogenic alterations in known or suspected ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. A targeted capture approach was employed to assay each of 19 genes for the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic alterations. Mutation frequencies in ovarian cancer cases were compared to mutation frequencies in individuals from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). Analyses stratified by family and personal history of other cancers and age at diagnosis were also performed. RESULTS: Significant associations (p<0.001) were identified between alterations in 11 genes and ovarian cancer, with eight of these displaying ≥5-fold increased risk (BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, MSH2, MSH6, RAD51C, RAD51D). Relative risks of ovarian cancer greater than two-fold were also observed for ATM, but could reliably be ruled out for RAD50 and CHEK2. CONCLUSIONS: These results will inform clinical management of women found to carry pathogenic alterations in genes tested on multi-gene panels. The knowledge that some genes are not associated with OC can reduce concerns of women found to carry pathogenic alterations in those genes.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Test Results for Women With Breast Cancer.

To evaluate the racial and ethnic differences in prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and the effect of race and ethnicity on breast cancer (BC) risk among carriers, results of multigene testing of 77 900 women with BC (non-Hispanic White [NHW] = 57 003; Ashkenazi-Jewish = 4798; Black = 6722; Hispanic = 5194; and Asian = 4183) were analyzed, and the frequency of PVs in each gene were compared between BC patients (cases) and race- and ethnicity-matched gnomAD reference controls. Compared with NHWs, BRCA1 PVs were enriched in Ashkenazi-Jews and Hispanics, whereas CHEK2 PVs were statistically significantly lower in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (all 2-sided P < .05). In case-control studies, BARD1 PVs were associated with high risks (odds ratio > 4.00) of BC in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; ATM PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among all races and ethnicities except Asians, whereas CHEK2 and BRIP1 PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among NHWs and Hispanics only. These findings suggest a need for personalized management of BC risk in PV carriers based on race and ethnicity.

Risk of Breast Cancer Among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the joint association of pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes and polygenic risk scores (PRS) with BC in the general population. METHODS: A total of 26,798 non-Hispanic white BC cases and 26,127 controls from predominately population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium were evaluated for PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, and NF1. PRS based on 105 common variants were created using effect estimates from BC genome-wide association studies; the performance of an overall BC PRS and estrogen receptor-specific PRS were evaluated. The odds of BC based on the PVs and PRS were estimated using penalized logistic regression. The results were combined with age-specific incidence rates to estimate 5-year and lifetime absolute risks of BC across percentiles of PRS by PV status and first-degree family history of BC. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime risks of BC among general-population noncarriers, based on 10th and 90th percentiles of PRS, were 9.1%-23.9% and 6.7%-18.2% for women with or without first-degree relatives with BC, respectively. Taking PRS into account, more than 95% of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 carriers had > 20% lifetime risks of BC, whereas, respectively, 52.5% and 69.7% of ATM and CHEK2 carriers without first-degree relatives with BC, and 78.8% and 89.9% of those with a first-degree relative with BC had > 20% risk. CONCLUSION: PRS facilitates personalization of BC risk among carriers of PVs in predisposition genes. Incorporating PRS into BC risk estimation may help identify > 30% of CHEK2 and nearly half of ATM carriers below the 20% lifetime risk threshold, suggesting the addition of PRS may prevent overscreening and enable more personalized risk management approaches.

The Contribution of Germline Predisposition Gene Mutations to Clinical Subtypes of Invasive Breast Cancer From a Clinical Genetic Testing Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The germline cancer predisposition genes associated with increased risk of each clinical subtype of breast cancer, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2, are not well defined. METHODS: A total of 54 555 invasive breast cancer patients with 56 480 breast tumors were subjected to clinical hereditary cancer multigene panel testing. Heterogeneity for predisposition genes across clinical breast cancer subtypes was assessed by comparing mutation frequencies by gene among tumor subtypes and by association studies between each tumor subtype and reference controls. RESULTS: Mutations in 15 cancer predisposition genes were detected in 8.6% of patients with ER+/HER2-; 8.9% with ER+/HER2+; 7.7% with ER-/HER2+; and 14.4% of ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. BRCA1, BRCA2, BARD1, and PALB2 mutations were enriched in ER- and HER2- tumors; RAD51C and RAD51D mutations were enriched in ER- tumors only; TP53 mutations were enriched in HER2+ tumors, and ATM and CHEK2 mutations were enriched in both ER+ and/or HER2+ tumors. All genes were associated with moderate (odds ratio > 2.00) or strong (odds ratio > 5.00) risks of at least one subtype of breast cancer in case-control analyses. Mutations in ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53 had predicted lifetime absolute risks of at least 20.0% for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Germline mutations in hereditary cancer panel genes confer subtype-specific risks of breast cancer. Combined tumor subtype, age at breast cancer diagnosis, and family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer information provides refined categorical estimates of mutation prevalence for women considering genetic testing.

Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes and Prostate Cancer Risk in Men of African Ancestry.

PURPOSE: In studies of men of European ancestry, rare pathogenic variants in DNA repair pathway genes have been shown to be associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer. The contribution of rare coding variation to prostate cancer risk in men of African ancestry has not been established. METHODS: We sequenced a panel of 19 DNA repair and cancer predisposition genes in 2,453 African American and 1,151 Ugandan prostate cancer cases and controls. Rare variants were classified as pathogenic or putatively functionally disruptive and examined in association with prostate cancer risk and disease aggressiveness in gene and pathway-level association analyses. RESULTS: Pathogenic variants were found in 75 out of 2,098 cases (3.6%) and 31 out of 1,481 controls (2.1%) (OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.19 to 2.79, P=0.0044) with the association being stronger for more aggressive disease phenotypes (OR=3.10, 95% CI=1.54 to 6.23, P=0.0022). The highest risks for aggressive disease were observed with pathogenic variants in the ATM, BRCA2, PALB2 and NBN genes, with odds ratios ranging from ~4 to 15 in the combined study sample of African American and Ugandan men. Rare, non-pathogenic, non-synonymous variants did not have a major impact on risk of overall prostate cancer or disease aggressiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Rare pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes have appreciable effects on risk of aggressive prostate cancer in men of African ancestry. These findings have potential implications for panel testing and risk stratification in this high-risk population.

Mutation Rates in Cancer Susceptibility Genes in Patients With Breast Cancer With Multiple Primary Cancers.

PURPOSE: Women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. Whether mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with breast and another primary cancer over those with a single breast cancer (S-BC) is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in 2 different cohorts: cohort 1, high-risk breast cancer program (multiple primary breast cancer [MP-BC], n = 551; S-BC, n = 449) and cohort 2, familial breast cancer research study (MP-BC, n = 340; S-BC, n = 1,464). Mutation rates in these 2 cohorts were compared with a control data set (Exome Aggregation Consortium [ExAC]). RESULTS: Overall, pathogenic mutation rates for autosomal, dominantly inherited genes were higher in patients with MP-BC versus S-BC in both cohorts (8.5% v 4.9% [P = .02] and 7.1% v 4.2% [P = .03]). There were differences in individual gene mutation rates between cohorts. In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates; the age of non-breast cancers was unrelated to mutation rate. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with MP-BC but not S-BC, whereas ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups compared with ExAC. CONCLUSION: Mutation rates are at least 7% in all patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-negative MP-BC, regardless of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, with mutation rates up to 25% in patients with a first breast cancer diagnosed at age < 30 years. Our results suggest that all patients with breast cancer with a second primary cancer, regardless of age of onset, should undergo multigene panel testing.

Risk of Different Cancers Among First-degree Relatives of Pancreatic Cancer Patients: Influence of Probands' Susceptibility Gene Mutation Status.

BACKGROUND: Increased risk of malignancies other than pancreatic cancer (PC) has been reported among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of PC patients; however, the roles of susceptibility gene mutations are unclear. We assessed risk for 15 cancers among FDRs of unselected PC probands. METHODS: Data on 17 162 FDRs, with more than 336 000 person-years at risk, identified through 2305 sequential PC probands enrolled at Mayo Clinic (2000-2016) were analyzed. Family history data were provided by the probands. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, comparing malignancies observed among the FDRs with that expected using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. Genetic testing was performed among a subset of probands (n = 2094), enabling stratified analyses among FDRs based on whether the related proband tested positive or negative for inherited mutation in 22 sequenced cancer susceptibility genes. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Compared with SEER, PC risk was twofold higher among FDRs of PC probands (SIR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.78 to 2.31, P < .001). Primary liver cancer risk was elevated among female FDRs (SIR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.34 to 3.12, P < .001). PC risk was more elevated among FDRs of mutation-positive probands (SIR = 4.32, 95% CI = 3.10 to 5.86) than FDRs of mutation-negative probands (SIR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.51 to 2.05, between-group P < .001). FDR PC risk was higher when the related proband was younger than age 60 years at diagnosis and mutation-positive (SIR = 5.24, 95% CI = 2.93 to 8.64) than when the proband was younger than age 60 years but mutation-negative (SIR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.47, between-group P < .001). Breast (SIR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.63) and ovarian (SIR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.30 to 4.00) cancers were elevated among FDRs of mutation-positive probands. CONCLUSIONS: Our study substantiates twofold risk of PC among FDRs of PC patients and suggests increased risk for primary liver cancer among female FDRs. FDRs of susceptibility mutation carriers had substantially increased risk for PC and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancers.

Common Genetic Variation and Breast Cancer Risk-Past, Present, and Future.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, with up to 30% of those diagnosed displaying a family history of breast cancer. To date, 18% of the familial risk of breast cancer can be explained by SNPs. This review summarizes the discovery of risk-associated SNPs using candidate gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), including discovery and replication in large collaborative efforts such as The Collaborative Oncologic Gene-environment Study and OncoArray. We discuss the evolution of GWAS studies, efforts to discover additional SNPs, and methods for identifying causal variants. We summarize findings associated with overall breast cancer, pathologic subtypes, and mutation carriers (BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2). In addition, we summarize the development of polygenic risk scores (PRS) using the risk-associated SNPs and show how PRS can contribute to estimation of individual risks for developing breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 380-94. ©2018 AACRSee all articles in this CEBP Focus section, "Genome-Wide Association Studies in Cancer."

Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panels Reveal High-Risk Pancreatic Cancer Susceptibility Genes.

PURPOSE: The relevance of inherited pathogenic mutations in cancer predisposition genes in pancreatic cancer is not well understood. We aimed to assess the characteristics of patients with pancreatic cancer referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and to estimate the risk of pancreatic cancer associated with mutations in panel-based cancer predisposition genes in this high-risk population. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic cancer (N = 1,652) were identified from a 140,000-patient cohort undergoing multigene panel testing of predisposition genes between March 2012 and June 2016. Gene-level mutation frequencies relative to Exome Aggregation Consortium and Genome Aggregation Database reference controls were assessed. RESULTS: The frequency of germline cancer predisposition gene mutations among patients with pancreatic cancer was 20.73%. Mutations in ATM, BRCA2, CDKN2A, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, and TP53 were associated with high pancreatic cancer risk (odds ratio, > 5), and mutations in BRCA1 were associated with moderate risk (odds ratio, > 2). In a logistic regression model adjusted for age at diagnosis and family history of cancer, ATM and BRCA2 mutations were associated with personal history of breast or pancreatic cancer, whereas PALB2 mutations were associated with family history of breast or pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insight into the spectrum of mutations expected in patients with pancreatic cancer referred for cancer predisposition testing. Mutations in eight genes confer high or moderate risk of pancreatic cancer and may prove useful for risk assessment for pancreatic and other cancers. Family and personal histories of breast cancer are strong predictors of germline mutations.

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Risk Genes Identified by Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing with hereditary cancer gene panels can identify women at increased risk of breast cancer. However, those at increased risk of triple-negative (estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative) breast cancer (TNBC) cannot be identified because predisposition genes for TNBC, other than BRCA1, have not been established. The aim of this study was to define the cancer panel genes associated with increased risk of TNBC. METHODS: Multigene panel testing for 21 genes in 8753 TNBC patients was performed by a clinical testing laboratory, and testing for 17 genes in 2148 patients was conducted by a Triple Negative Breast Cancer Consortium (TNBCC) of research studies. Associations between deleterious mutations in cancer predisposition genes and TNBC were evaluated using results from TNBC patients and reference controls. RESULTS: Germline pathogenic variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and RAD51D were associated with high risk (odds ratio > 5.0) of TNBC and greater than 20% lifetime risk for overall breast cancer among Caucasians. Pathogenic variants in BRIP1, RAD51C, and TP53 were associated with moderate risk (odds ratio > 2) of TNBC. Similar trends were observed for the African American population. Pathogenic variants in these TNBC genes were detected in 12.0% (3.7% non-BRCA1/2) of all participants. CONCLUSIONS: Multigene hereditary cancer panel testing can identify women with elevated risk of TNBC due to mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and RAD51D. These women can potentially benefit from improved screening, risk management, and cancer prevention strategies. Patients with mutations may also benefit from specific targeted therapeutic strategies.

Quantitative Analysis of Immunohistochemistry in Melanoma Tumors.

Identification of positive staining is often qualitative and subjective. This is particularly troublesome in pigmented melanoma lesions, because melanin is difficult to distinguish from the brown stain resulting from immunohistochemistry (IHC) using horse radish peroxidase developed with 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine (HRP-DAB). We sought to identify and quantify positive staining, particularly in melanoma lesions. We visualized G-protein coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) expression developed with HRP-DAB and counterstained with Azure B (stains melanin) in melanoma tissue sections (n = 3). Matched sections (n = 3), along with 22 unmatched sections, were stained only with Azure B as a control. Breast tissue (n = 1) was used as a positive HRP-DAB control. Images of the stained tissues were generated using a Nuance Spectral Imaging Camera. Analysis of the images was performed using the Nuance Spectral Imaging software and SlideBook. Data was analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). We showed that a pigmented melanoma tissue doubly stained with anti-GPER HRP-DAB and Azure B can be unmixed using spectra derived from a matched, Azure B-only section, and an anti-GPER HRP-DAB control. We unmixed each of the melanoma lesions using each of the Azure B spectra, evaluated the mean intensity of positive staining, and examined the distribution of the mean intensities (P = .73; Kruskal-Wallis). These results suggest that this method does not require a matched Azure B-only stained control tissue for every melanoma lesion, allowing precious tissues to be conserved for other studies. Importantly, this quantification method reduces the subjectivity of protein expression analysis, and provides a valuable tool for accurate evaluation, particularly for pigmented tissues.

Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, the relevance of germline variants in other genes from multigene hereditary cancer testing panels is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risks of breast cancer associated with germline variants in cancer predisposition genes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A study population of 65 057 patients with breast cancer receiving germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes with hereditary cancer multigene panels. Associations between pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes and breast cancer risk were estimated in a case-control analysis of patients with breast cancer and Exome Aggregation Consortium reference controls. The women underwent testing between March 15, 2012, and June 30, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast cancer risk conferred by pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age at diagnosis for the 65 057 women included in the analysis was 48.5 (11.1) years. The frequency of pathogenic variants in 21 panel genes identified in 41 611 consecutively tested white women with breast cancer was estimated at 10.2%. After exclusion of BRCA1, BRCA2, and syndromic breast cancer genes (CDH1, PTEN, and TP53), observed pathogenic variants in 5 of 16 genes were associated with high or moderately increased risks of breast cancer: ATM (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.22-3.62), BARD1 (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.31-3.63), CHEK2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.67), PALB2 (OR, 7.46; 95% CI, 5.12-11.19), and RAD51D (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.21-7.88). Conversely, variants in the BRIP1 and RAD51C ovarian cancer risk genes; the MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN MRN complex genes; the MLH1 and PMS2 mismatch repair genes; and NF1 were not associated with increased risks of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study establishes several panel genes as high- and moderate-risk breast cancer genes and provides estimates of breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants in these genes among individuals qualifying for clinical genetic testing.

The contribution of pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes to familial breast cancer risk.

Understanding the gene-specific risks for development of breast cancer will lead to improved clinical care for those carrying germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes. We sought to detail the spectrum of mutations and refine risk estimates for known and proposed breast cancer susceptibility genes. Targeted massively-parallel sequencing was performed to identify mutations and copy number variants in 26 known or proposed breast cancer susceptibility genes in 2134 BRCA1/2-negative women with familial breast cancer (proband with breast cancer and a family history of breast or ovarian cancer) from a largely European-Caucasian multi-institutional cohort. Case-control analysis was performed comparing the frequency of internally classified mutations identified in familial breast cancer women to Exome Aggregation Consortium controls. Mutations were identified in 8.2% of familial breast cancer women, including mutations in high-risk (odds ratio > 5) (1.4%) and moderate-risk genes (2 < odds ratio < 5) (2.9%). The remaining familial breast cancer women had mutations in proposed breast cancer genes (1.7%), Lynch syndrome genes (0.5%), and six cases had two mutations (0.3%). Case-control analysis demonstrated associations with familial breast cancer for ATM, PALB2, and TP53 mutations (odds ratio > 3.0, p < 10-4), BARD1 mutations (odds ratio = 3.2, p = 0.012), and CHEK2 truncating mutations (odds ratio = 1.6, p = 0.041). Our results demonstrate that approximately 4.7% of BRCA1/2 negative familial breast cancer women have mutations in genes statistically associated with breast cancer. We classified PALB2 and TP53 as high-risk, ATM and BARD1 as moderate risk, and CHEK2 truncating mutations as low risk breast cancer predisposition genes. This study demonstrates that large case-control studies are needed to fully evaluate the breast cancer risks associated with mutations in moderate-risk and proposed susceptibility genes.