National recommendations of the French Genetics and Cancer Group - Unicancer on the modalities of multi-genes panel analyses in hereditary predispositions to tumors of the digestive tract.

In case of suspected hereditary predisposition to digestive cancers, next-generation sequencing can analyze simultaneously several genes associated with an increased risk of developing these tumors. Thus, "Gastro Intestinal" (GI) gene panels are commonly used in French molecular genetic laboratories. Lack of international recommendations led to disparities in the composition of these panels and in the management of patients. To harmonize practices, the Genetics and Cancer Group (GGC)-Unicancer set up a working group who carried out a review of the literature for 31 genes of interest in this context and established a list of genes for which the estimated risks associated with pathogenic variant seemed sufficiently reliable and high for clinical use. Pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes have been excluded. This expertise defined a panel of 14 genes of confirmed clinical interest and relevant for genetic counseling: APC, BMPR1A, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, PMS2, POLD1, POLE, PTEN, SMAD4 and STK11. The reasons for the exclusion of the others 23 genes have been discussed. The paucity of estimates of the associated tumor risks led to the exclusion of genes, in particular CTNNA1, MSH3 and NTHL1, despite their implication in the molecular pathways involved in the pathophysiology of GI cancers. A regular update of the literature is planned to up-grade this panel of genes in case of new data on candidate genes. Genetic and epidemiological studies and international collaborations are needed to better estimate the risks associated with the pathogenic variants of these genes either selected or not in the current panel.

The Influence of Number and Timing of Pregnancies on Breast Cancer Risk for Women With BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: Full-term pregnancy (FTP) is associated with a reduced breast cancer (BC) risk over time, but women are at increased BC risk in the immediate years following an FTP. No large prospective studies, however, have examined whether the number and timing of pregnancies are associated with BC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: Using weighted and time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, we investigated whether reproductive events are associated with BC risk for mutation carriers using a retrospective cohort (5707 BRCA1 and 3525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and a prospective cohort (2276 BRCA1 and 1610 BRCA2 mutation carriers), separately for each cohort and the combined prospective and retrospective cohort. RESULTS: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was no overall association with parity compared with nulliparity (combined hazard ratio [HRc] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.18). Relative to being uniparous, an increased number of FTPs was associated with decreased BC risk (HRc = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; HRc = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82; HRc = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.63, for 2, 3, and ≥4 FTPs, respectively, P trend < .0001) and increasing duration of breastfeeding was associated with decreased BC risk (combined cohort P trend = .0003). Relative to being nulliparous, uniparous BRCA1 mutation carriers were at increased BC risk in the prospective analysis (prospective hazard ration [HRp] = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.62). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, being parous was associated with a 30% increase in BC risk (HRc = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.69), and there was no apparent decrease in risk associated with multiparity except for having at least 4 FTPs vs. 1 FTP (HRc = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest differential associations with parity between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with higher risk for uniparous BRCA1 carriers and parous BRCA2 carriers.