Association of the CHEK2 c.1100delC variant, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with contralateral breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific survival.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC-specific survival (BCSS) compared to non-carriers. AIM: To assessed the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. METHODS: Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with a first primary invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow-up was 9.1 years. Differential associations with treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi-state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. RESULTS: There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status. The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR (95% CI): 0.66 (0.55-0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi-state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non-carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR (95% CI): 1.30 (1.09-1.56)]. CONCLUSION: Systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk.

Association of the CHEK2 c.1100delC variant, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with contralateral breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific survival.

Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC-specific survival (BCSS) compared to non-carriers. We aimed to assess the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow-up was 9.1 years. Differential associations of treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi-state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR(95%CI): 0.66 (0.55-0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi-state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non-carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR(95%CI) :1.30 (1.09-1.56)]. In conclusion, systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk. (Main MS: 3201 words).

The impact of coding germline variants on contralateral breast cancer risk and survival.

Evidence linking coding germline variants in breast cancer (BC)-susceptibility genes other than BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2 with contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the association of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) and rare missense variants (MSVs) in nine known (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) and 25 suspected BC-susceptibility genes with CBC risk and BCSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox regression models. Analyses included 34,401 women of European ancestry diagnosed with BC, including 676 CBCs and 3,449 BC deaths; the median follow-up was 10.9 years. Subtype analyses were based on estrogen receptor (ER) status of the first BC. Combined PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 and PALB2 were associated with increased CBC risk [HRs (95% CIs): 2.88 (1.70-4.87), 2.31 (1.39-3.85), 8.29 (2.53-27.21), 2.25 (1.55-3.27), and 2.67 (1.33-5.35), respectively]. The strongest evidence of association with BCSS was for PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA2 (ER-positive BC) and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 [HRs (95% CIs): 1.53 (1.13-2.07), 2.08 (0.95-4.57), and 1.39 (1.13-1.72), respectively, after adjusting for tumor characteristics and treatment]. HRs were essentially unchanged when censoring for CBC, suggesting that these associations are not completely explained by increased CBC risk, tumor characteristics, or treatment. There was limited evidence of associations of PTVs and/or rare MSVs with CBC risk or BCSS for the 25 suspected BC genes. The CBC findings are relevant to treatment decisions, follow-up, and screening after BC diagnosis.

FANCM missense variants and breast cancer risk: a case-control association study of 75,156 European women.

Evidence from literature, including the BRIDGES study, indicates that germline protein truncating variants (PTVs) in FANCM confer moderately increased risk of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), especially for women with a family history of the disease. Association between FANCM missense variants (MVs) and breast cancer risk has been postulated. In this study, we further used the BRIDGES study to test 689 FANCM MVs for association with breast cancer risk, overall and in ER-negative and TNBC subtypes, in 39,885 cases (7566 selected for family history) and 35,271 controls of European ancestry. Sixteen common MVs were tested individually; the remaining rare 673 MVs were tested by burden analyses considering their position and pathogenicity score. We also conducted a meta-analysis of our results and those from published studies. We did not find evidence for association for any of the 16 variants individually tested. The rare MVs were significantly associated with increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer by burden analysis comparing familial cases to controls (OR = 1.48; 95% CI 1.07-2.04; P = 0.017). Higher ORs were found for the subgroup of MVs located in functional domains or predicted to be pathogenic. The meta-analysis indicated that FANCM MVs overall are associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.08-1.38; P = 0.002). Our results support the definition from previous analyses of FANCM as a moderate-risk breast cancer gene and provide evidence that FANCM MVs could be low/moderate risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Further genetic and functional analyses are necessary to clarify better the increased risks due to FANCM MVs.

Gene-Environment Interactions Relevant to Estrogen and Risk of Breast Cancer: Can Gene-Environment Interactions Be Detected Only among Candidate SNPs from Genome-Wide Association Studies?

In this study we aim to examine gene-environment interactions (GxEs) between genes involved with estrogen metabolism and environmental factors related to estrogen exposure. GxE analyses were conducted with 1970 Korean breast cancer cases and 2052 controls in the case-control study, the Seoul Breast Cancer Study (SEBCS). A total of 11,555 SNPs from the 137 candidate genes were included in the GxE analyses with eight established environmental factors. A replication test was conducted by using an independent population from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), with 62,485 Europeans and 9047 Asians. The GxE tests were performed by using two-step methods in GxEScan software. Two interactions were found in the SEBCS. The first interaction was shown between rs13035764 of NCOA1 and age at menarche in the GE|2df model (p-2df = 1.2 × 10-3). The age at menarche before 14 years old was associated with the high risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher when subjects had homozygous minor allele G. The second GxE was shown between rs851998 near ESR1 and height in the GE|2df model (p-2df = 1.1 × 10-4). Height taller than 160 cm was associated with a high risk of breast cancer, and the risk increased when the minor allele was added. The findings were not replicated in the BCAC. These results would suggest specificity in Koreans for breast cancer risk.

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.).

No association of TGFB1 L10P genotypes and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a multi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The transforming growth factor beta-1 gene (TGFB1) is a plausible candidate for breast cancer susceptibility. The L10P variant of TGFB1 is associated with higher circulating levels and secretion of TGF-beta, and recent large-scale studies suggest strongly that this variant is associated with breast cancer risk in the general population. METHODS: To evaluate whether TGFB1 L10P also modifies the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, we undertook a multi-center study of 3,442 BRCA1 and 2,095 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: We found no evidence of association between TGFB1 L10P and breast cancer risk in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. The per-allele HR for the L10P variant was 1.01 (95%CI: 0.92-1.11) in BRCA1 carriers and 0.92 (95%CI: 0.81-1.04) in BRCA2 mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis that TGFB1 L10P genotypes modify the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

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.