Copy Number Variants Are Ovarian Cancer Risk Alleles at Known and Novel Risk Loci.

BACKGROUND: Known risk alleles for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) account for approximately 40% of the heritability for EOC. Copy number variants (CNVs) have not been investigated as EOC risk alleles in a large population cohort. METHODS: Single nucleotide polymorphism array data from 13 071 EOC cases and 17 306 controls of White European ancestry were used to identify CNVs associated with EOC risk using a rare admixture maximum likelihood test for gene burden and a by-probe ratio test. We performed enrichment analysis of CNVs at known EOC risk loci and functional biofeatures in ovarian cancer-related cell types. RESULTS: We identified statistically significant risk associations with CNVs at known EOC risk genes; BRCA1 (PEOC = 1.60E-21; OREOC = 8.24), RAD51C (Phigh-grade serous ovarian cancer [HGSOC] = 5.5E-4; odds ratio [OR]HGSOC = 5.74 del), and BRCA2 (PHGSOC = 7.0E-4; ORHGSOC = 3.31 deletion). Four suggestive associations (P < .001) were identified for rare CNVs. Risk-associated CNVs were enriched (P < .05) at known EOC risk loci identified by genome-wide association study. Noncoding CNVs were enriched in active promoters and insulators in EOC-related cell types. CONCLUSIONS: CNVs in BRCA1 have been previously reported in smaller studies, but their observed frequency in this large population-based cohort, along with the CNVs observed at BRCA2 and RAD51C gene loci in EOC cases, suggests that these CNVs are potentially pathogenic and may contribute to the spectrum of disease-causing mutations in these genes. CNVs are likely to occur in a wider set of susceptibility regions, with potential implications for clinical genetic testing and disease prevention.

Breast Cancer Risk Genes - Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes, evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimates are imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking. METHODS: We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity. RESULTS: Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.).

Germline HOXB13 mutations p.G84E and p.R217C do not confer an increased breast cancer risk.

In breast cancer, high levels of homeobox protein Hox-B13 (HOXB13) have been associated with disease progression of ER-positive breast cancer patients and resistance to tamoxifen treatment. Since HOXB13 p.G84E is a prostate cancer risk allele, we evaluated the association between HOXB13 germline mutations and breast cancer risk in a previous study consisting of 3,270 familial non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases and 2,327 controls from the Netherlands. Although both recurrent HOXB13 mutations p.G84E and p.R217C were not associated with breast cancer risk, the risk estimation for p.R217C was not very precise. To provide more conclusive evidence regarding the role of HOXB13 in breast cancer susceptibility, we here evaluated the association between HOXB13 mutations and increased breast cancer risk within 81 studies of the international Breast Cancer Association Consortium containing 68,521 invasive breast cancer patients and 54,865 controls. Both HOXB13 p.G84E and p.R217C did not associate with the development of breast cancer in European women, neither in the overall analysis (OR = 1.035, 95% CI = 0.859-1.246, P = 0.718 and OR = 0.798, 95% CI = 0.482-1.322, P = 0.381 respectively), nor in specific high-risk subgroups or breast cancer subtypes. Thus, although involved in breast cancer progression, HOXB13 is not a material breast cancer susceptibility gene.

The RAD51C exonic splice-site mutations c.404G>C and c.404G>T are associated with familial breast and ovarian cancer.

Whereas RAD51C mutations increase the relative risk for ovarian cancer (OC) to 5.88 (95% confidence interval=2.91-11.88, P=7.65×10), the associated risks for breast cancer (BC) remain largely unknown, as deleterious RAD51C alterations are extremely rare in BC-only families. Here, we report the results of a RAD51C mutational screening in a large series of German familial index patients negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations and the in-vitro characterization of two novel exonic RAD51C splice-site mutations. A total of 610 index cases derived from BC/OC (n=587) or OC-only families (n=23) were screened for potentially deleterious germline mutations in RAD51C. The frequencies of two splice-site mutations were assessed by single-nucleotide polymorphism genotyping in 1410 additional cases not enriched for OC family history. In three independent families, we identified novel splice-site mutations affecting the last nucleotide of exon 2 (c.404G>C, c.404G>T). Both mutations disrupt proper RAD51C pre-mRNA processing and cause a missense substitution immediately followed by a stop codon (p.Cys135Serfs*2; p.Cys135Leufs*2). Even though both mutations have similar effects on the protein level, they are associated with either BC/OC, OC-only, or BC-only family histories. The rare finding of a clearly truncating RAD51C mutation in an early-onset BC patient with a BC-only family history supports the notion that compromised RAD51C function may result in both BC and OC. Large international collaborative studies are needed to quantify the relative risk of RAD51C alterations for BC and to unravel the genetic modifying factors that determine phenotypic variability with respect to cancer site.