Clinical significance of germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA) testing and olaparib as maintenance therapy for patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA) mutation in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) is not common in clinical practice. Therefore, factors that efficiently show gBRCA mutations and the real-world outcomes of olaparib maintenance therapy have not been fully established. In the present study, we clarified the indicators for the effective detection of gBRCA mutation and the efficacy and safety of olaparib as maintenance therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 84 patients with PC who underwent gBRCA testing (BRACAnalysis, Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) at our institute between January 2021 and March 2022. For each patient, clinical data were extracted from medical records. RESULTS: The median patient age was 64 y (29-85 y), and 41 patients (48.8%) were male. The gBRCA mutations were identified in 10 (11.9%) patients; two patients had BRCA1 mutation and eight had BRCA2 mutation. All patients with gBRCA mutation had a family history of any cancer, and eight of them had a family history of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC)-related cancer. The gBRCA mutation rate was higher for patients with PC with a family history of HBOC-related cancer compared to that in patients with PC having a family history of other cancers and no family history of cancer (22.9% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.014). In our study, eight out of 10 patients with gBRCA-positive PC received olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy. The best responses to platinum-based chemotherapy included a complete response in one patient (12.5%) and a partial response in seven patients (87.5%). The median duration of treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus olaparib was 17.5 months (8-87 months), and the duration of treatment with olaparib maintenance therapy was 11 months (1-30 months). During olaparib maintenance therapy, three patients showed no disease progression. One of these three patients underwent conversion surgery after receiving olaparib for 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The gBRCA testing should be considered proactively, especially in patients with PC with a family history of HBOC-related cancer.

Sexual Function in Women Diagnosed with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) predisposes women to an increased risk mainly of breast and tubo-ovarian cancer. The aim of the study is to investigate whether being diagnosed with HBOC syndrome is itself a risk factor for sexual dysfunction. METHODS: An ad hoc questionnaire, including baseline demographic and clinical data, and the Sexual Function Questionnaire 28 (SFQ28) were administered to HBOC female carriers (study group) and to a control group. RESULTS: After propensity score matching (1:1), we enrolled 202 women, 101 in the study group and 101 in the control group. In a multivariate analysis, we finally found that menopausal status was the only risk factor for a significant low score in the domains Desire (HR 0.66; CI95% 0.47-0.93; p = 0.017), Arousal (Lubrication) (HR 0.52; CI95% 0.34-0.80; p = 0.003), Arousal (Cognitive) (HR 0.64; CI95% 0.44-0.95; p = 0.027), and Orgasm (HR 0.33; CI95% (0.16-0.70; p = 0.004), independent of risk-reducing surgery for gynecological malignancy. Psycho-oncology support is a protective factor for the Enjoyment domain (HR 1.38; CI95% 1.05-1.81; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: HBOC syndrome itself does not affect SFQ28 domains, while menopausal status significantly influences sexual health, with potential mitigating effects of psycho-oncological support.

Multi-gene panel analysis in BRCA1/2-negative patients suspected of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome: Real-world data from a single institution.

AIM: Although BRCA1/2 is most frequently associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), many other related genes have been implicated. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of non-BRCA1/2 genes associated with hereditary cancer predisposition in BRCA1/2-negative patients from the Department of Genetic Medicine and Services with breast and ovarian cancer using a multi-gene panel (MGP) analysis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective MGP analysis (National Cancer Center Onco-Panel for Familial Cancer; NOP_FC) in BRCA1/2-negative patients with breast, ovarian, and overlapping breast/ovarian cancers who visited our genetic counseling between April 2004 and October 2022. RESULTS: NOP_FC was performed in 128 of the 390 BRCA test-negative cases (117 breast cancer, 9 ovarian cancer, and 2 overlapping breast/ovarian cancer cases). Among the BRCA1/2-negative patients, nine (7.7%) with breast cancer and one (11%) with ovarian cancer had pathogenic variants (PVs) in non-BRCA1/2 genes associated with breast and ovarian cancers, respectively. Five patients had PVs in RAD51D, two in PALB2, one in BARD1, one in ATM, and one in RAD51C. CONCLUSIONS: Additional MGP testing of germline genes associated with hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome in BRCA1/2-negative breast and ovarian cancer patients revealed PVs in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer- and ovarian cancer-related genes in 7.7% of breast cancer and 11% of ovarian cancer. Therefore, additional testing may provide useful information for subsequent risk-reducing surgery and surveillance in BRCA1/2-negative patients.

High-risk pathogenic germline variants in blood relatives of BRCA1/2 negative probands.

BACKGROUND: Tailored, preventive cancer care requires the identification of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) among potentially at-risk blood relatives (BRs). Cascade testing is carried out for BRs of probands who are positive for PGVs of an inherited cancer but not for negative probands. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of PGVs for BRs of PGV-negative probands. METHODS: PGV prevalence was assessed for 682 BRs of 281 probands with BRCA1/BRCA2 wild-type hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. RESULTS: PGVs were discovered in 22 (45.8%) of the 48 BRs of the PGV-positive probands and in 14 (2.2%) of 634 BRs of the PGV-negative probands. Eleven PGVs on high-risk BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 genes were present only in BRs and not in the probands (probands vs BRs in Fisher exact test; p = 0.0104; odds ratio [OR] = 0.000 [0.000-0.5489 of 95% confidence interval]), partly due to the nature of the selection criteria. The enrichment of high-risk PGVs among BRs was also significant as compared with a non-cancer East Asian population (p = 0.0016; OR = 3.0791 [1.5521-5.6694]). PGV prevalence, risk class of gene, and genotype concordance were unaffected by the cancer history among BRs. CONCLUSION: These findings imply the necessity to construct a novel testing scheme to complement cascade testing.

BRCA1 Intragenic Duplication Combined with a Likely Pathogenic TP53 Variant in a Patient with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Clinical Risk and Management.

For patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, the probability of carrying two pathogenic variants (PVs) in dominant cancer-predisposing genes is rare. Using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS), we investigated a 49-year-old Caucasian woman who developed a highly aggressive breast tumor. Our analyses identified an intragenic germline heterozygous duplication in BRCA1 with an additional likely PV in the TP53 gene. The BRCA1 variant was confirmed by multiplex ligation probe amplification (MLPA), and genomic breakpoints were characterized at the nucleotide level (c.135-2578_442-1104dup). mRNA extracted from lymphocytes was amplified by RT-PCR and then Sanger sequenced, revealing a tandem duplication r.135_441dup; p.(Gln148Ilefs*20). This duplication results in the synthesis of a truncated and, most likely, nonfunctional protein. Following functional studies, the TP53 exon 5 c.472C > T; p.(Arg158Cys) missense variant was classified as likely pathogenic by the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) working group. This type of unexpected association will be increasingly identified in the future, with the switch from targeted BRCA sequencing to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) panel sequencing, raising the question of how these patients should be managed. It is therefore important to record and investigate these rare double-heterozygous genotypes.

Management and Clinical Outcomes of Breast Cancer in Women Diagnosed with Hereditary Cancer Syndromes in a Clinic-Based Sample from Colombia.

This study aimed to investigate prognosis and survival differences in 82 breast cancer patients with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs) treated and followed at the Breast Unit of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Colombia (INC-C) between 2018 and 2021. Median age at diagnosis was 46 years, with 62.2% presenting locally advanced tumors, 47.6% histological grade 3, and 35.4% with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtype. Most carriers, 74.4% (61/82), had PVs in known breast cancer susceptibility genes (i.e., "associated gene carriers" group, considered inherited breast cancer cases): BRCA2 (30), BRCA1 (14), BARD1 (4), RAD51D (3), TP53 (2), PALB2 (2), ATM (2), CHEK2 (1), RAD51C (1), NF1 (1), and PTEN (1). BRCA1-2 represented 53.7%, and homologous recombination DNA damage repair (HR-DDR) genes associated with breast cancer risk accounted for 15.9%. Patients with PVs in non-breast-cancer risk genes were combined in a different category (21/82; 25.6%) (i.e., "non-associated gene carriers" group, considered other breast cancer cases). Median follow-up was 38.1 months, and 24% experienced recurrence, with 90% being distant. The 5-year Disease-Free Survival (DFS) for inherited breast cancer cases was 66.5%, and for other breast cancer cases it was 88.2%. In particular, for carriers of PVs in the BRCA2 gene, it was 37.6%. The 5-year Overall Survival (OS) rates ranged from 68.8% for those with PVs in BRCA2 to 100% for those with PVs in other HR-DDR genes. Further studies are crucial for understanding tumor behavior and therapy response differences among Colombian breast cancer patients with germline PVs.

Walking the tightrope: Fertility preservation among hereditary breast and ovarian Cancer syndrome Previvors.

INTRODUCTION: Fertility-related concerns cause significant anxiety among patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC). The Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommend patients diagnosed with HBOC receive early referral to a reproductive endocrinologist. However, evidence about fertility trends in this patient population are limited and guidelines are scarce. The aim of this study is to compare fertility preservation among patients with HBOC to control patients undergoing fertility treatment without a diagnosis of infertility. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who presented to a single academic institution for fertility preservation in the setting of diagnosis of HBOC. In this study, HBOC patients are referred to as those who had tested positive for pathogenic mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2 or were at high-risk for HBOC based on a strong family history (defined as >3 family members diagnosed with HBOC) without a genetic mutation. HBOC patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion to a control group undergoing fertility preservation without a diagnosis of infertility or HBOC. All analysis was done using SPSS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Between August 1st, 2016 and August 1st, 2022, 81 patients presented to the study center for consultation in the setting of HBOC. Of those who presented, 48 (59.2%) ultimately underwent oocyte cryopreservation and 33 (40.7%) underwent embryo cryopreservation. Patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation due to BRCA1 status were more likely to present for fertility consultation at a younger age compared to control patients (32.6 vs. 34.7 years, p = 0.03) and were more likely to undergo oocyte cryopreservation at a younger age (32.1 vs. 34.6 years, p = 0.007). There was no difference in age at initial consultation or age at procedure for patients with BRCA2 or patients with a strong family history compared to control patients (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the mean age of patients with HBOC at presentation for consultation for embryo cryopreservation or the mean age the patient with HBOC underwent embryo cryopreservation compared to control patients (p > 0.05). Patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 did not have expedited time from consultation to first cycle start (p > 0.05). After adjusting for factors including anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level and age, patients considered in the HBOC group due to family history had less time between consultation and oocyte cryopreservation cycle compared to control patients. (179 vs. 317 days, p = 0.045). There was no difference in time from consultation to starting cycle for embryo cryopreservation for patients with HBOC compared to controls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with HBOC did not undergo expedited fertility treatment compared to control patients undergoing oocyte and embryo cryopreservation for non-infertility reasons. Patients diagnosed with BRCA1 had more oocytes retrieved compared to the control population which is possibly due to earlier age of presentation in the setting of recommended age of risk reducing surgery being age 35-40. When age matched, cycle outcomes did not differ between HBOC and control patients. Given the known cancer prevention benefit and recommendations for risk-reducing surgery, future studies should focus on guidelines for fertility preservation for patients with HBOC.

Role of Breast Cancer Risk Estimation Models to Identify Women Eligible for Genetic Testing and Risk-Reducing Surgery.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is responsible for approximately 10% of breast cancers (BCs). The HBOC gene panel includes both high-risk genes, i.e., a four times higher risk of BC (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CDH1, PTEN, STK11 and TP53), and moderate-risk genes, i.e., a two to four times higher risk of BC (BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51C, RAD51D and ATM). Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in HBOC genes confer an absolute risk of BC that changes according to the gene considered. We illustrate and compare different BC risk estimation models, also describing their limitations. These models allow us to identify women eligible for genetic testing and possibly to offer surgical strategies for primary prevention, i.e., risk-reducing mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies.

Decision-making for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy for an increased lifetime breast cancer risk: A qualitative metasynthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Previvor is a term applied to a person with an identified, elevated lifetime cancer risk but without an actual cancer diagnosis. Previvorship entails the selection of risk management strategies. For women with a genetic mutation that increases their predisposition for a breast cancer diagnosis, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) is the most effective prevention strategy. However, BRRM can change a woman's breast appearance and function. The purpose of this qualitative metasynthesis (QMS) was to better understand the decision-making process for BRRM among previvors. METHODS: A theory-generating QMS approach was used to analyze and synthesize qualitative findings. Research reports were considered for inclusion if: (1) women over 18 years of age possessed a genetic mutation increasing lifetime breast cancer risk or a strong family history of breast cancer; (2) the sample was considering, or had completed, BRRM; (3) the results reported qualitative findings. Exclusion criteria were male gender, personal history of breast cancer, and research reports which did not separate findings based on cancer diagnosis and/or risk-reduction surgery. RESULTS: A theory and corresponding model emerged, comprised of seven themes addressing the decision-making process for or against BRRM. While some factors to decision-making were decisive for surgery, others were more indefinite and contributed to women changing, processing, or suspending their decision-making for a period of time. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the decision previvors make about BRRM, physical and psychosocial well-being should be considered and promoted through shared decision-making in the clinical setting.

Ovarian surveillance including endometrial cytology for patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer before risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: A retrospective analysis.

AIM: Ovarian surveillance in women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer who do not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy has been controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to demonstrate the clinical features of ovarian surveillance at our institution using a technique that combines serum cancer antigen 125 measurements, transvaginal ultrasonography, and uterine endometrial cytology. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 65 women, who had not undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy diagnosed with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer between 2000 and 2021 at our hospital. Clinical information was obtained and analyzed through a chart review. The details of the treatment course were reviewed for patients who had developed ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Overall, 5 of the 65 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer based on abnormal findings during periodic surveillance. All patients who developed ovarian cancer were asymptomatic, even if the cancer was at an advanced stage. Two of the 65 patients had endometrial cytology abnormalities, both of whom had ovarian cancer. All patients who developed ovarian cancer underwent primary debulking surgery, and complete gross resection was achieved. None of the patients experienced ovarian cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The ovarian surveillance strategy at our institution for women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer who do not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy can identify asymptomatic ovarian cancer and contribute to achieving complete gross resection during primary surgery. Ovarian surveillance may contribute to a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality.

Counselling Framework for Germline BRCA1/2 and PALB2 Carriers Considering Risk-Reducing Mastectomy.

Female BRCA1/2 and PALB2 germline pathogenic variant carriers have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and may wish to consider risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for surgical prevention. Quantifying the residual lifetime risk and absolute benefit from RRM requires careful consideration of a patient's age, pathogenic variant, and their personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. Historically, patients have been counselled that RRM does not necessarily prolong survival relative to high-risk surveillance, although recent studies suggest a possible survival benefit of RRM in BRCA1 carriers. The uptake of RRM has increased dramatically over the last several decades yet varies according to sociodemographic factors and geographic region. The increased adoption of nipple-sparing mastectomy techniques, ability to avoid axillary staging, and availability of reconstructive options for most germline pathogenic variant carriers has helped to minimize the morbidity of RRM. Preoperative discussions should include evidence regarding postmastectomy sensation, the potential for supplemental surgery, pregnancy-related chest wall changes, and the need for continued clinical surveillance. Approaches that include sensation preservation and robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy are an area of evolving research that may be more widely adopted in the future.

A case of simultaneous breast cancer and ovarian cancer based on a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.

We experienced a relatively rare case of synchronous breast and ovarian cancer in a patient with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). Here, we report the usefulness of laparoscopic examination to determine the subsequent treatment strategy in cases of suspected concurrent multiple carcinomas. Our patient was diagnosed with breast cancer following detection of a right breast mass. She was diagnosed with HBOC as she was found to be harboring a germline pathogenic variant of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1). Preoperative images suggested the presence of neoplastic masses in the abdominal cavity, and the possibility of metastatic peritoneal dissemination of breast cancer or concurrent overlapping of gynecological malignancies was considered. We decided to employ laparoscopic examination, and if simultaneous overlapping of cancers was suspected, we planned to further evaluate whether primary debulking surgery (PDS) for gynecological cancer was possible or not. Laparoscopy revealed the presence of ovarian cancer with neoplastic lesions on the bilateral ovaries and disseminations in the pelvic and abdominal cavities. The total predictive index was 0; therefore, PDS was considered feasible. We performed a total mastectomy, followed by laparotomy, and optimal surgery was achieved. The final diagnosis was simultaneous stage IIB invasive ductal breast carcinoma and stage IIIC high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. In this case of suspected concurrent multiple carcinomas, laparoscopy was beneficial for decision-making regarding subsequent surgical treatment. We believe that the use of laparoscopy will enable simultaneous surgery for breast cancer and ovarian cancer to become one of the treatment strategies in the future.

Application of genetic counseling and preventive surgery in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome based on a rare family / 中华肿瘤杂志

Objective: To investigate the genetic, clinical and pathological characteristics of families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) and to explore the implementation of genetic counseling and preventive surgery. Methods: Four siblings with HBOCS in Cancer Hospital/Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences were selected as the study subjects. BRCA gene testing and genetic counseling were performed, family history was traced and family map was drawn. Results: There were 7 cancer patients (Ⅰ 2, Ⅱ 4, Ⅱ 8, Ⅲ 7, Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 11, Ⅲ 12) in three generations in the family. One patient (Ⅲ 7) had breast cancer and ovarian cancer successively. The first generation (Ⅰ 2) developed cancer at age 60, the second generation (Ⅱ4 and Ⅱ8) developed cancer at 55. The third generation (Ⅲ 7, Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 11, Ⅲ 12) developed cancer at the age of 42-50 years. Four HBOCS patients were treated in our hospital, and all of them were found to have deleterious BRCA1 mutation. Two had already developed ovarian cancer (Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 12), while in one case (Ⅲ 11), tubal carcinoma was found during preventive total hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node metastasis was found after the supplementary staging surgery. The other patient without cancer underwent preventive bilateral salpingectomy(Ⅲ 15). Conclusion: The HBOCS family reported in this study is relatively rare, the onset time of tumor was younger generation by generation. It is very important to pay attention to the genetic counseling of ovarian cancer patients and to timely detect the HBOCS families for genetic testing and prophylactic surgery.

Application of genetic counseling and preventive surgery in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome based on a rare family / 中华肿瘤杂志

Objective: To investigate the genetic, clinical and pathological characteristics of families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) and to explore the implementation of genetic counseling and preventive surgery. Methods: Four siblings with HBOCS in Cancer Hospital/Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences were selected as the study subjects. BRCA gene testing and genetic counseling were performed, family history was traced and family map was drawn. Results: There were 7 cancer patients (Ⅰ 2, Ⅱ 4, Ⅱ 8, Ⅲ 7, Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 11, Ⅲ 12) in three generations in the family. One patient (Ⅲ 7) had breast cancer and ovarian cancer successively. The first generation (Ⅰ 2) developed cancer at age 60, the second generation (Ⅱ4 and Ⅱ8) developed cancer at 55. The third generation (Ⅲ 7, Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 11, Ⅲ 12) developed cancer at the age of 42-50 years. Four HBOCS patients were treated in our hospital, and all of them were found to have deleterious BRCA1 mutation. Two had already developed ovarian cancer (Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 12), while in one case (Ⅲ 11), tubal carcinoma was found during preventive total hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node metastasis was found after the supplementary staging surgery. The other patient without cancer underwent preventive bilateral salpingectomy(Ⅲ 15). Conclusion: The HBOCS family reported in this study is relatively rare, the onset time of tumor was younger generation by generation. It is very important to pay attention to the genetic counseling of ovarian cancer patients and to timely detect the HBOCS families for genetic testing and prophylactic surgery.

Histological and Immunohistochemical Characteristics for Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Brazilian Women / Características histológicas e imunohistoquímicas para risco hereditário de câncer de mama em uma coorte de mulheres brasileiras

Abstract Objective The study aimed to characterize the clinical, histological, and immunohistochemical profile of women with invasive breast cancer, according to the risk for Hereditary Predisposition Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in a Brazilian population. Methods This is a retrospective study performed from a hospital-based cohort of 522 women, diagnosed with breast cancer treated at an oncology referral center in the Southeast region of Brazil, between 2014 and 2016. Results Among the 430 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer who composed the study population, 127 (29.5%) were classified as at increased risk for hereditary predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. There was a lower level of education in patients at increased risk (34.6%) when compared with those at usual risk (46.0%). Regarding tumor characteristics, women at increased risk had higher percentages of the disease diagnosed at an advanced stage (32.3%), and with tumors > 2cm (63.0%), with increased prevalence for both characteristics, when compared with those at usual risk. Furthermore, we found higher percentages of HG3 (43.3%) and Ki-67 ≥ 25% (64.6%) in women at increased risk, with prevalence being about twice as high in this group. The presence of triple-negative tumors was observed as 25.2% in women at increased risk and 6.0% in women at usual risk, with the prevalence of absence of biomarkers being 2.5 times higher among women in the increased risk group. Conclusion From the clinical criteria routinely used in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the care practice of genetic counseling for patients at increased risk of hereditary breast cancer in contexts such as Brazil is still scarce.

Resumo Objetivo O presente estudo buscou caracterizar o perfil clínico, histológico e imunohistoquímico de mulheres com câncer de mama invasivo segundo o risco para a Síndrome de Predisposição Hereditária ao Câncer de Mama e Ovário em uma população brasileira. Métodos Trata-se de um estudo retrospectivo realizado a partir de uma coorte hospitalar composta por 522 mulheres diagnosticadas com câncer de mama entre 2014 e 2016 assistidas em um centro de referência oncológica localizado na região sudeste brasileira. Resultados Entre as 430 mulheres diagnosticadas com câncer de mama invasivo que compuseram a população de estudo, 127 (29,5%) foram classificadas como de risco aumentado para a síndrome de predisposição hereditária ao câncer de mama e ovário. Verificou-se menor nível de escolaridade nas pacientes com risco aumentado (34,6%) quando comparadas àquelas consideradas como de risco habitual (46,0%). Quanto às características do tumor, as mulheres de risco aumentado apresentaram maiores percentuais de doença diagnosticada em estádio avançado (32,3%) e com tumores > 2cm (63,0%), com prevalência aumentada para ambas as características, quando comparadas àquelas de risco habitual. Ainda nas mulheres de risco aumentado, foram encontrados maiores percentuais de GH3 (43,3%) e Ki-67 ≥ 25% (64,6%), com prevalência cerca de duas vezes maior neste grupo. A presença de tumores triplo-negativos foi observada em 25,2% nas mulheres de risco aumentado e 6,0% nas mulheres de risco habitual, com prevalência de ausência de biomarcadores 2,5 vezes maior entre as mulheres do grupo de risco aumentado. Conclusão A partir dos critérios clínicos rotineiramente utilizados no diagnóstico do câncer de mama, a prática assistencial do aconselhamento genético para as pacientes com risco aumentado de câncer de mama hereditário em contextos como o do Brasil ainda é escarça.

Germline genetic mutations in high-risk patients for breast cancer: profile of a group in the city of Florianopolis, Santa Catarina

To analyze the occurrence of genetic mutations in a sample of patients with high risk of breast cancer in Florianopolis/ SC from December 1st, 2021, to January 31, 2022. Methods: An observational, descriptive and retrospective study carried out through data collection of a preexisting database. A total of 194 tests were analyzed. Of these, 192 met the inclusion criteria and composed the final sample of 205 genes. Data were classified and reported the frequency and percentage of the variables: gene and presence or absence of mutation. Results: Mean age of the analyzed patients was 52.3 years, and most underwent the test due to personal history of breast cancer (80%). Clinical significance classification showed that, of the 192 gene panels, 62% were variants of uncertain significance; 14% were pathogenic; and 24%, negative. Of the 205 mutations, the most prevalent genes were: ATM 8.7%, MUTYH 5.8%, POLE 5.8%, BRCA2 4.8%, MSH6 4.8% and RECQL4 4.8%. Of the pathogenic tests regarding genetic predisposition to cancer (n=38/14.1%), the most common mutations were MUTYH (23%) and BRCA1 (15%), with mean age of 52 years (±14.3). In variants of uncertain significance panels (n=168/62%) the frequency rates were ATM (7.7%), POLE (7.1%) and MSH6 (5.9%) genes. The high penetrance genes were present in 18% of the genetic predisposition to cancer panels. Of those with positive family history (n=40), 19% of the genes were pathogenic, 53% were variants of uncertain significance; and 26% were negative. Furthermore, in patients with pathogenic mutations and positive family history (n=11), the most common mutations were in BRCA1 (27%) and BRCA2 (27%). Of the patients who tested due to personal history (n=152), 64% of the genes presented variants of uncertain significance, 13% were pathogenic and 22% were negative.

Comparison of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and sporadic ovarian cancer in ovarian cancer BRCA mutations / 中华妇产科杂志

Objective:To study the difference between BRCA gene mutations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) and in sporadic ovarian cancer (SOC).Methods:This study was for exploratory research, the inclusion criteria were 284 patients with ovarian cancer admitted at Shanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital from November 2018 to December 2019, with high-throughput DNA sequencing including the full coding regions and exon-intron link regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene. Pathogenic mutations in the BRCA gene of patients with ovarian cancer were collected and mutation site analysis was performed to compare phenotypic differences in pathogenic mutations between HBOC syndrome and SOC patients.Results:(1) Of the 284 ovarian cancer patients, seventy-seven had BRCA pathogenic mutations with a mutation rate of 27.1% (77/284), with BRCA1 mutation rate of 19.7% (56/284), BRCA2 gene 6.7% (19/284) and BRCA1/2 common mutation rate of 0.7% (2/284). Of the 284 patients with ovarian cancer, the pathogenic mutation rate in the BRCA gene in HBOC syndrome patients was 43.8% (32/73), which were significantly higher than that in SOC patients [21.3% (45/211); χ2=13.905, P<0.01]. Among BRCA1 gene mutation, the mutation rate in HBOC syndrome was higher than that of SOC [87.5% (28/32) vs 62.2% (28/45)], the BRCA2 gene mutation rate in patients with HBOC syndrome was lower than that in SOC patients [6.2% (2/32) vs 37.8% (17/45)], and there were statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Two of the 77 patients with pathogenic mutations in the BRCA gene were multisite mutations, including one simultaneous two site mutation, one simultaneous three site mutation. There were 80 mutation sites with frameshift deletion mutations (55.0%, 44/80) and nonsense mutations (31.2%, 25/80). (2) Of the 73 patients with HBOC syndrome, 32 cases had pathogenic mutations in BRCA gene, including 28 cases in BRCA1, mainly in exon 11 and 24 (9 and 7 cases, respectively), and only two cases in BRCA2, both in exon 11; another two had multiple locus mutations. Of the 211 patients with SOC, 45 cases had pathogenic mutants in BRCA gene, including 28 cases in BRCA1, mainly in exon 11 and 24 (15 and 2 cases, respectively), and 17 cases in BRCA2, mainly in exon 11 (11 cases). (3) Thirty-four pathogenic mutation sites in BRCA gene were found newly, twenty of them were located in the BRCA1 gene, including a locus located on the intron 6, 301+1G>A, and the remaining 19 sites were located on the exons, including 283_286delCTTG, 68_69delAG, 132C>T, 514_547+3del37, 742delA, 1126_1129delAATA, 1196delA, 1352_1364del, 1465G>T, 2171delC, 2341G>T, 3359_3363delTTAAT, 4085_4086ins11, 4161_4162delTC, 4165_4166delAG, 4258G>T, 4338_4339del8insAGAA, 4468G>T, and 4783delA; fourteen sites were located in the BRCA2 gene, including a locus located on the intron 7, 631+1G>A, and the remaining 13 sites were located on the exons, including 2648delT, 2914A>T, 2950_2951insG, 4357+1G>A, 5054C>T, 5257A>T, 5291_5292insTC, 5913delT, 3593delA, 6091_6092insA, 6135_6136delTT, 7452delT, 9097_9098insA. A tal of 28 repeat mutations were located in the BRCA1 gene; among them, the site 5470_5477del8 was repeated 6 times, while 3 times in 981_982delAT. Conclusions:Patients with HBOC syndrome have a significantly higher rate of pathogenic mutation in the BRCA gene than that in patients with SOC. BRCA gene pathogenic mutation sites in HBOC syndrome patients occur commonly in exon 11 and 24 of BRCA 1 gene, while SOC patients occur mainly in exon 11 and 24 of BRCA1 gene and exon 11 of BRCA2 gene. The two loci of BRCA1∶5470_5477del8, BRCA1∶981_982delAT may be ancestor mutations in Chinese ovarian cancer patients, and 34 newly discovered pathogenic mutations in the BRCA gene, enriching the BRCA gene mutation spectrum in the Chinese population.

Hereditary breast cancer ­ what we have learned in the last decade

This literature review aims to inform and assist physicians and other health professionals in managing all information related to hereditary breast cancer, which is in constant and rapid growth, allowing for improvement in patient care and assistance. In addition, we seek to better identify which patients are eligible for the clinical criteria of association with risk of hereditary breast cancer, based on international recommendations and highlighting the main high and moderate penetrance genes that make up the multigenic panels for germline investigation in breast cancer, as well as the possibilities of clinical management that must be considered when complex decisions are required in clinical practice. Nowadays, there is more interest in population screening, in a greater supply of genetic tests, more genes included in multigene panels ­ allowing the search for genetic counseling ­, apart from the need for clinical-decision support.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a sample of breast and ovarian cancer families from the Colombian pacific / Mutaciones en los genes BRCA1 y BRCA2 en una muestra de familias con cáncer de mama y/u ovario del pacífico colombiano

Abstract Introduction: Breast cancer is the most common neoplasia of women from all over the world especially women from Colombia. 5%­10% of all cases are caused by hereditary factors, 25% of those cases have mutations in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes. Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify the mutations associated with the risk of familial breast and/or ovarian cancer in a population of Colombian pacific. Methods: 58 high-risk breast and/or ovarian cancer families and 20 controls were screened for germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, by Single Strand Conformation Polymorphism (SSCP) and sequencing. Results: Four families (6.9%) were found to carry BRCA1 mutations and eight families (13.8%) had mutations in BRCA2. In BRCA1, we found three Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS), of which we concluded, using in silico tools, that c.81­12C>G and c.3119G>A (p.Ser1040Asn) are probably deleterious, and c.3083G>A (p.Arg1028His) is probably neutral. In BRCA2, we found three variants of uncertain significance: two were previously described and one novel mutation. Using in silico analysis, we concluded that c.865A>G (p.Asn289Asp) and c.6427T>C (p.Ser2143Pro) are probably deleterious and c.125A>G (p.Tyr42Cys) is probably neutral. Only one of them has previously been reported in Colombia. We also identified 13 polymorphisms (4 in BRCA1 and 9 in BRCA2), two of them are associated with a moderate increase in breast cancer risk (BRCA2 c.1114A>C and c.8755­66T>C). Conclusion: According to our results, the Colombian pacific population presents diverse mutational spectrum for BRCA genes that differs from the findings in other regions in the country.

Resumen Introducción: El cáncer de mama es la neoplasia más común en mujeres de todo el mundo, y, también de Colombia. 5% a 10% de todos los casos son causados por factores hereditarios; 25% de estos casos tienen mutaciones en los genes BRCA1/BRCA2. Objetivo: El propósito de este estudio fue el de identificar mutaciones asociadas con riesgo de cáncer de mama y/u ovario familiar en pacientes del pacífico colombiano. Métodos: Fueron revisados para mutaciones en BRCA1 y BRCA2 de línea germinal mediante SSCP y secuenciación 58 familias de alto riesgo para cáncer de mama y/u ovario y 20 controles Resultados: cuatro familias (6.9%) presentaron mutaciones en BRCA1 y ocho familias (13.8%) en BRCA2. En BRCA1, encontramos tres variantes de significado clínico desconocido (VUS), de las cuales concluimos, usando herramientas bioinformáticas, que c.81­12C>G y c.3119G>A (p.Ser1040Asn) son probablemente deletéreas, y c.3083G>A (p.Arg1028His) es probablemente neutral. En BRCA2, encontramos tres VUS: una mutación nueva y dos previamente descritas, usando análisis bioinformáticos, concluimos que c.865A>G (p.Asn289Asp) y c.6427T>C (p.Ser2143Pro) son probablemente deletéreas y c.125A>G (p.Tyr42Cys) es probablemente neutral. Solo una de ellas ha sido reportada previamente en Colombia. También identificamos 13 polimorfismos (4 en BRCA1 y 9 en BRCA2), dos de ellos asociados con un moderado incremento del riesgo para cáncer de mama (BRCA2 c.1114A>C and c.8755­66T>C). Conclusión: de acuerdo con nuestros resultados, la población del suroccidente colombiano presenta un espectro mutacional diverso para los genes BRCA que difiere de lo encontrado en otras regiones del país.

The influence of BRCA variants of unknown significance on cancer risk management decision-making / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecological cancer risk management between women with BRCA variants of unknown significance (VUS) to women with negative genetic testing METHODS: Ninety-nine patients whose BRCA genetic testing yielded VUS were matched with 99 control patients with definitive negative BRCA results at a single institution. Demographics and risk management decisions were obtained through chart review. Primary outcome was the rate of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO). Chi square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression were performed, with significance of p<0.05. RESULTS: VUS patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (p=0.000) and of Ashkenazi-Jewish descent (p=0.000). There was no difference in gynecologic oncology referrals or recommendations to screen or undergo risk-reducing surgery for VUS vs. negative patients. Ultimately, 44 patients (22%) underwent RRBSO, with no significant difference in surgical rate based on the presence of VUS. Ashkenazi-Jewish descent was associated with a 4.5 times increased risk of RRBSO (OR=4.489; 95% CI=1.484–13.579) and family history of ovarian cancer was associated with a 2.6 times risk of RRBSO (OR=2.641; 95% CI=1.107–6.299). CONCLUSION: In our institution, patients with VUS were surgically managed similarly to those with negative BRCA testing. The numbers of patients with VUS are likely to increase with the implementation of multi-gene panel testing. Our findings underscore the importance of genetic counseling and individualized screening and prevention strategies in the management of genetic testing results.