Somatic mosaics in hereditary tumor predisposition syndromes.

Historically, it is estimated that 5-10% of cancer patients carry a causative genetic variant for a tumor predisposition syndrome. These conditions have high clinical relevance as they are actionable regarding risk-specific surveillance, predictive genetic testing, reproductive options, and - in some cases - risk reducing surgery or targeted therapy. Every individual is born with on average 0.5-1 exonic mosaic variants prevalent in single or multiple tissues. Depending on the tissues affected, mosaic conditions can abrogate the clinical phenotype of a tumor predisposition syndrome and can even go unrecognized, because it can be impossible or difficult to detect them with routine genetic testing in blood/leucocytes. On the other hand, it is estimated that at least 4% of presumed de novo variants are the result of low-level mosaicism (variant allele frequency <10%) in a parent, while around 7% are true mosaic variants with a higher variant allele frequency, which can sometimes be confused for heterozygous variants. Clonal hematopoiesis however can simulate a mosaic tumor predisposition in genetic diagnostics and has to be taken into account, especially for TP53 variants. Depending on the technique, variant allele frequencies of 2-3% can be detected for single nucleotide variants by next generation sequencing, copy number variants with variant allele frequencies of 5-30% can be detected by array-based technologies or MLPA. Mosaic tumor predisposition syndromes are more common than previously thought and may often remain undiagnosed. The clinical suspicion and diagnostic procedure for several cases with mosaic tumor predisposition syndromes are presented.

Comparison of microsatellite instability detection by immunohistochemistry and molecular techniques in colorectal and endometrial cancer.

DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) testing is crucial for diagnosing Lynch syndrome and detection of microsatellite unstable (MSI) tumors eligible for immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the relative diagnostic performance of three molecular MSI assays: polymerase chain reaction (PCR), MSI testing by Idylla and next-generation-sequencing (NGS) on 49 tumor samples (28 colorectal and 21 endometrial adenocarcinomas) versus immunohistochemistry (IHC). Discrepancies were investigated by MLH1 methylation analysis and integrated with germline results if available. Overall, the molecular assays achieved equivalent diagnostic performance for MSI detection with area under the ROC curves (AUC) of respectively 0.91 for Idylla and PCR, and 0.93 for NGS. In colorectal cancers with tumor cell percentages ≥ 30% all three molecular assays achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 1) versus IHC. Also, in endometrial cancers, all three molecular assays showed equivalent diagnostic performance, albeit at a clearly lower sensitivity ranging from 58% for Idylla to 75% for NGS, corresponding to negative predictive values from 78 to 86%. PCR, Idylla and NGS show similar diagnostic performance for dMMR detection in colorectal and endometrial cancers. Molecular MSI analysis has lower sensitivity for dMMR detection in endometrial cancer indicating that combined use of both IHC and molecular methods is recommended.Clinical Trial Number/IRB: B1172020000040, Ethical Committee, AZ Delta General Hospital.

The BRCA1 c. 5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) intermediate risk variant: breast and ovarian cancer risk estimation and recommendations for clinical management from the ENIGMA consortium.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that the BRCA1 variant c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) was associated with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). This study aimed to assess these cancer risks for R1699Q carriers in a larger cohort, including follow-up of previously studied families, to further define cancer risks and to propose adjusted clinical management of female BRCA1*R1699Q carriers. METHODS: Data were collected from 129 BRCA1*R1699Q families ascertained internationally by ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium members. A modified segregation analysis was used to calculate BC and OC risks. Relative risks were calculated under both monogenic model and major gene plus polygenic model assumptions. RESULTS: In this cohort the cumulative risk of BC and OC by age 70 years was 20% and 6%, respectively. The relative risk for developing cancer was higher when using a model that included the effects of both the R1699Q variant and a residual polygenic component compared with monogenic model (for BC 3.67 vs 2.83, and for OC 6.41 vs 5.83). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that BRCA1*R1699Q confers an intermediate risk for BC and OC. Breast surveillance for female carriers based on mammogram annually from age 40 is advised. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be considered based on family history.

PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM rare variants and cancer risk: data from COGS.

BACKGROUND: The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. METHODS: We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. RESULTS: For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10-5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10-8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. CONCLUSIONS: This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.