Contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations to inherited ovarian cancer.

A total of 283 epithelial ovarian cancer families from the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) were screened for coding sequence changes and large genomic alterations (rearrangements and deletions) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Deleterious BRCA1 mutations were identified in 104 families (37%) and BRCA2 mutations in 25 families (9%). Of the 104 BRCA1 mutations, 12 were large genomic alterations; thus this type of change represented 12% of all BRCA1 mutations. Six families carried a previously described exon 13 duplication, known to be a UK founder mutation. The remaining six BRCA1 genomic alterations were previously unreported and comprised five deletions and an amplification of exon 15. One of the 25 BRCA2 mutations identified was a large genomic deletion of exons 19-20. The prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations correlated with the extent of ovarian and breast cancer in families. Of 37 families containing more than two ovarian cancer cases and at least one breast cancer case with diagnosis at less than 60 years of age, 30 (81%) had a BRCA1/2 mutation. The mutation prevalence was appreciably less in families without breast cancer; mutations were found in only 38 out of 141 families (27%) containing two ovarian cancer cases only, and in 37 out of 59 families (63%) containing three or more ovarian cancer cases. These data indicate that BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the major susceptibility genes for ovarian cancer but that other susceptibility genes may exist. Finally, it is likely that these data will be of clinical importance for individuals in families with a history of epithelial ovarian cancer, in providing accurate estimates of their disease risks.

Screening for the BRCA1-ins6kbEx13 mutation: potential for misdiagnosis. Mutation in brief #964. Online.

Misdiagnosis of a germline mutation associated with an inherited disease syndrome can have serious implications for the clinical management of patients. A false negative diagnosis (mutation missed by genetic screening) limits decision making about intervention strategies within families. More serious is the consequence of a false positive diagnosis (genetic test suggesting a mutation is present when it is not). This could lead to an individual, falsely diagnosed as a mutation carrier, undergoing unnecessary clinical intervention, possibly involving risk-reducing surgery. As part of screening 283 ovarian cancer families for BRCA1 mutations, we used two different methods (mutation specific PCR and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification) to screen for a known rearrangement mutation L78833.1:g.44369_50449dup (ins6kbEx13). We found false positive and false negative results in several families. We then tested 61 known carriers or non-carriers from an epidemiological study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (the EMBRACE study). These data highlight the need for caution when interpreting analyses of the ins6kbEx13 mutation and similar mutations, where characterising the exact sequence alteration for a deleterious mutation is not a part of the routine genetic test.