Uncovering the Contribution of Moderate-Penetrance Susceptibility Genes to Breast Cancer by Whole-Exome Sequencing and Targeted Enrichment Sequencing of Candidate Genes in Women of European Ancestry.

Rare variants in at least 10 genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2, are associated with increased risk of breast cancer; however, these variants, in combination with common variants identified through genome-wide association studies, explain only a fraction of the familial aggregation of the disease. To identify further susceptibility genes, we performed a two-stage whole-exome sequencing study. In the discovery stage, samples from 1528 breast cancer cases enriched for breast cancer susceptibility and 3733 geographically matched unaffected controls were sequenced. Using five different filtering and gene prioritization strategies, 198 genes were selected for further validation. These genes, and a panel of 32 known or suspected breast cancer susceptibility genes, were assessed in a validation set of 6211 cases and 6019 controls for their association with risk of breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor (ER) disease subtypes, using gene burden tests applied to loss-of-function and rare missense variants. Twenty genes showed nominal evidence of association (p-value < 0.05) with either overall or subtype-specific breast cancer. Our study had the statistical power to detect susceptibility genes with effect sizes similar to ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, however, it was underpowered to identify genes in which susceptibility variants are rarer or confer smaller effect sizes. Larger sample sizes would be required in order to identify such genes.

Consensus Recommendations of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Background: The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has established a multigene panel (TruRisk®) for the analysis of risk genes for familial breast and ovarian cancer. Summary: An interdisciplinary team of experts from the GC-HBOC has evaluated the available data on risk modification in the presence of pathogenic mutations in these genes based on a structured literature search and through a formal consensus process. Key Messages: The goal of this work is to better assess individual disease risk and, on this basis, to derive clinical recommendations for patient counseling and care at the centers of the GC-HBOC from the initial consultation prior to genetic testing to the use of individual risk-adapted preventive/therapeutic measures.

Clonal Hematopoiesis-Associated Gene Mutations in a Clinical Cohort of 448 Patients With Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at risk of secondary therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs). Acquired blood-specific mutations in clonal hematopoiesis (CH)-associated genes are t-MN risk factors, and their occurrence associated with cancer therapy and age. Patients with ovarian cancer (OC) showed a particularly high prevalence of CH-associated gene mutations, which may additionally be explained by the high proportion of a hereditary disease cause in this cancer entity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 448 OC patients enrolled in the AGO-TR1 study; 249 were enrolled at primary diagnosis and 199 at platinum-sensitive recurrence. Analyses included the most frequently altered CH-associated genes (ASXL1, DNMT3A, GNAS, JAK2, PPM1D, SF3B1, SH2B3, SRSF2, TET2, TP53). Results were analyzed according to the BRCA1/2 germline (gBRCA1/2) mutation status. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Advanced age at blood draw and a high number of prior platinum-based chemotherapy lines were risk factors to acquire CH-associated gene mutations, with gene-specific effects observed. Binomial logistic regression suggested increased probabilities for gBRCA1/2 mutation carriers to acquire CH-associated PPM1D and TP53 gene mutations (PPM1D: odds ratio = 4.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.48 to 12.46, P = .007; TP53: odds ratio = 6.20, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 53.9, P = .06). This observation was due to a statistically significantly increased number of platinum-based chemotherapy lines in gBRCA1/2 mutation carriers vs noncarriers (PPM1D: mean [SD] = 2.04 [1.27] vs 1.04 [0.99], P < .001; TP53: mean [SD] = 2.83 [1.33] vs 1.07 [1.01], P < .001). No interaction between platinum-based chemotherapy and gBRCA1/2 mutation status with the occurrence of CH-associated gene mutations was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A positive gBRCA1/2 mutation status is not a risk factor to acquire CH-associated gene mutations. OC patients may benefit from monitoring CH-associated gene mutations, especially following carboplatin exposure. Future clinical studies are required to assess whether treatment regimen should be adapted according to individual t-MN risks.

Performance of Breast Cancer Polygenic Risk Scores in 760 Female CHEK2 Germline Mutation Carriers.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies suggest that the combined effects of breast cancer (BC)-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can improve BC risk stratification using polygenic risk scores (PRSs). The performance of PRSs in genome-wide association studies-independent clinical cohorts is poorly studied in individuals carrying mutations in moderately penetrant BC predisposition genes such as CHEK2. METHODS: A total of 760 female CHEK2 mutation carriers were included; 561 women were affected with BC, of whom 74 developed metachronous contralateral BC (mCBC). For PRS calculations, 2 SNP sets covering 77 (SNP set 1, developed for BC risk stratification in women unselected for their BRCA1/2 germline mutation status) and 88 (SNP set 2, developed for BC risk stratification in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers) BC-associated SNPs were used. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Both SNP sets provided concordant PRS results at the individual level (r = 0.91, P < 2.20 × 10-16). Weighted cohort Cox regression analyses revealed statistically significant associations of PRSs with the risk for first BC. For SNP set 1, a hazard ratio of 1.71 per SD of the PRS was observed (95% confidence interval = 1.36 to 2.15, P = 3.87 × 10-6). PRSs identify a subgroup of CHEK2 mutation carriers with a predicted lifetime risk for first BC that exceeds the surveillance thresholds defined by international guidelines. Association of PRS with mCBC was examined via Cox regression analysis (SNP set 1 hazard ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 0.86 to 1.78, P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: PRSs may be used to personalize risk-adapted preventive measures for women with CHEK2 mutations. Larger studies are required to assess the role of PRSs in mCBC predisposition.

Association of Germline Variant Status With Therapy Response in High-risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GeparOcto Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The GeparOcto randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 neoadjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment regimens: sequential intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) vs weekly paclitaxel and nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PM) in patients with different biological BC subtypes. Patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC) randomized to the PM arm received additional carboplatin (PMCb). Overall, no difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates was observed between study arms. It remained elusive whether the germline variant status of BRCA1/2 and further BC predisposition genes are associated with treatment outcome. Objective: To determine treatment outcome for BC according to germline variant status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective biomarker study is a secondary analysis of the GeparOcto multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial conducted between December 2014 and June 2016. Genetic analyses assessing for variants in BRCA1/2 and 16 other BC predisposition genes in 914 of 945 women were performed at the Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Cologne, Germany, from August 2017 through December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients who achieved pCR (ypT0/is ypN0 definition) after neoadjuvant treatment according to germline variant status. Results: In the study sample of 914 women with different BC subtypes with a mean (range) age at BC diagnosis of 48 (21-76) years, overall higher pCR rates were observed in patients with BRCA1/2 variants than in patients without (60.4% vs 46.7%; odds ratio [OR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.13-2.68; P = .01); variants in non-BRCA1/2 BC predisposition genes were not associated with therapy response. Patients with TNBC with BRCA1/2 variants achieved highest pCR rates. In the TNBC subgroup, a positive BRCA1/2 variant status was associated with therapy response in both the PMCb arm (74.3% vs 47.0% without BRCA1/2 variant; OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44-7.39; P = .005) and the iddEPC arm (64.7% vs 45.0%; OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.04-4.84; P = .04). A positive BRCA1/2 variant status was also associated with elevated pCR rates in patients with ERBB2-negative, hormone receptor-positive BC (31.8% vs 11.9%; OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.22-9.72; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Effective chemotherapy for BRCA1/2-mutated TNBC is commonly suggested to be platinum based. With a pCR rate of 64.7%, iddEPC may also be effective in these patients, though further prospective studies are needed. The elevated pCR rate in BRCA1/2-mutated ERBB2-negative, hormone receptor-positive BC suggests that germline BRCA1/2 testing should be considered prior to treatment start. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02125344.

Germline loss-of-function variants in the BARD1 gene are associated with early-onset familial breast cancer but not ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of the BARD1 gene in breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) predisposition remains elusive, as published case-control investigations have revealed controversial results. We aimed to assess the role of deleterious BARD1 germline variants in BC/OC predisposition in a sample of 4920 BRCA1/2-negative female BC/OC index patients of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). METHODS: A total of 4469 female index patients with BC, 451 index patients with OC, and 2767 geographically matched female control individuals were screened for loss-of-function (LoF) mutations and potentially damaging rare missense variants in BARD1. All patients met the inclusion criteria of the GC-HBOC for germline testing and reported at least one relative with BC or OC. Additional control datasets (Exome Aggregation Consortium, ExAC; Fabulous Ladies Over Seventy, FLOSSIES) were included for the calculation of odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: We identified LoF variants in 23 of 4469 BC index patients (0.51%) and in 36 of 37,265 control individuals (0.10%), resulting in an OR of 5.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.17-9.04; P < 0.00001). BARD1-mutated BC index patients showed a significantly younger mean age at first diagnosis (AAD; 42.3 years, range 24-60 years) compared with the overall study sample (48.6 years, range 17-92 years; P = 0.00347). In the subgroup of BC index patients with an AAD < 40 years, an OR of 12.04 (95% CI = 5.78-25.08; P < 0.00001) was observed. An OR of 7.43 (95% CI = 4.26-12.98; P < 0.00001) was observed when stratified for an AAD < 50 years. LoF variants in BARD1 were not significantly associated with BC in the subgroup of index patients with an AAD ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.29; 95% CI = 0.82-6.45; P = 0.11217). Overall, rare and predicted damaging BARD1 missense variants were significantly more prevalent in BC index patients compared with control individuals (OR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.26-3.67; P = 0.00723). Neither LoF variants nor predicted damaging rare missense variants in BARD1 were identified in 451 familial index patients with OC. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the significant association of germline LoF variants in BARD1 with early-onset BC, we suggest that intensified BC surveillance programs should be offered to women carrying pathogenic BARD1 gene variants.

Diagnosis of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: Differentiating TP53 germline mutations from clonal hematopoiesis: Results of the observational AGO-TR1 trial.

The Li-Fraumeni cancer predisposition syndrome (LFS1) presents with a variety of tumor types and the TP53 gene is covered by most diagnostic cancer gene panels. We demonstrate that deleterious TP53 variants identified in blood-derived DNA of 523 patients with ovarian cancer (AGO-TR1 trial) were not causal for the patients' ovarian cancer in three out of six TP53-positive cases. In three out of six patients, deleterious TP53 mutations were identified with low variant fractions in blood-derived DNA but not in the tumor of the patient seeking advice. The analysis of the TP53 and PPM1D genes, both intimately involved in chemotherapy-induced and/or age-related clonal hematopoiesis (CH), in 523 patients and 1,053 age-matched female control individuals revealed that CH represents a frequent event following chemotherapy, affecting 26 of the 523 patients enrolled (5.0%). Considering that TP53 mutations may arise from chemotherapy-induced CH, our findings help to avoid false-positive genetic diagnoses of LFS1.

Gene panel testing of 5589 BRCA1/2-negative index patients with breast cancer in a routine diagnostic setting: results of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

The prevalence of germ line mutations in non-BRCA1/2 genes associated with hereditary breast cancer (BC) is low, and the role of some of these genes in BC predisposition and pathogenesis is conflicting. In this study, 5589 consecutive BC index patients negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations and 2189 female controls were screened for germ line mutations in eight cancer predisposition genes (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53). All patients met the inclusion criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for germ line testing. The highest mutation prevalence was observed in the CHEK2 gene (2.5%), followed by ATM (1.5%) and PALB2 (1.2%). The mutation prevalence in each of the remaining genes was 0.3% or lower. Using Exome Aggregation Consortium control data, we confirm significant associations of heterozygous germ line mutations with BC for ATM (OR: 3.63, 95%CI: 2.67-4.94), CDH1 (OR: 17.04, 95%CI: 3.54-82), CHEK2 (OR: 2.93, 95%CI: 2.29-3.75), PALB2 (OR: 9.53, 95%CI: 6.25-14.51), and TP53 (OR: 7.30, 95%CI: 1.22-43.68). NBN germ line mutations were not significantly associated with BC risk (OR:1.39, 95%CI: 0.73-2.64). Due to their low mutation prevalence, the RAD51C and RAD51D genes require further investigation. Compared with control datasets, predicted damaging rare missense variants were significantly more prevalent in CHEK2 and TP53 in BC index patients. Compared with the overall sample, only TP53 mutation carriers show a significantly younger age at first BC diagnosis. We demonstrate a significant association of deleterious variants in the CHEK2, PALB2, and TP53 genes with bilateral BC. Both, ATM and CHEK2, were negatively associated with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumor phenotypes. A particularly high CHEK2 mutation prevalence (5.2%) was observed in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors.

BRIP1 loss-of-function mutations confer high risk for familial ovarian cancer, but not familial breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in the BRIP1 gene have been described as conferring a moderate risk for ovarian cancer (OC), while the role of BRIP1 in breast cancer (BC) pathogenesis remains controversial. METHODS: To assess the role of deleterious BRIP1 germline mutations in BC/OC predisposition, 6341 well-characterized index patients with BC, 706 index patients with OC, and 2189 geographically matched female controls were screened for loss-of-function (LoF) mutations and potentially damaging missense variants. All index patients met the inclusion criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for germline testing and tested negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. RESULTS: BRIP1 LoF mutations confer a high OC risk in familial index patients (odds ratio (OR) = 20.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 12.02-36.57, P < 0.0001) and in the subgroup of index patients with late-onset OC (OR = 29.91, 95% CI = 14.99-59.66, P < 0.0001). No significant association of BRIP1 LoF mutations with familial BC was observed (OR = 1.81 95% CI = 1.00-3.30, P = 0.0623). In the subgroup of familial BC index patients without a family history of OC there was also no apparent association (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.70-2.90, P = 0.3030). In 1027 familial BC index patients with a family history of OC, the BRIP1 mutation prevalence was significantly higher than that observed in controls (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 1.43-9.01; P = 0.0168). Based on the negative association between BRIP1 LoF mutations and familial BC in the absence of an OC family history, we conclude that the elevated mutation prevalence in the latter cohort was driven by the occurrence of OC in these families. Compared with controls, predicted damaging rare missense variants were significantly more prevalent in OC (P = 0.0014) but not in BC (P = 0.0693) patients. CONCLUSIONS: To avoid ambiguous results, studies aimed at assessing the impact of candidate predisposition gene mutations on BC risk might differentiate between BC index patients with an OC family history and those without. In familial cases, we suggest that BRIP1 is a high-risk gene for late-onset OC but not a BC predisposition gene, though minor effects cannot be excluded.

RAD51C deletion screening identifies a recurrent gross deletion in breast cancer and ovarian cancer families.

RAD51C is an integral part of the DNA double-strand repair through homologous recombination, and monoallelic mutations were found in ~1.3% of BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer (BC) and/or ovarian cancer (OC) families. Several studies confirmed the occurrence of RAD51C mutations predominantly in BC and/or OC families, although with varying frequencies, clearly establishing RAD51C as a cancer-predisposing gene. There is ongoing debate whether pathogenic RAD51C alterations increase the relative risk for BC in addition to that for OC, which was estimated to be 5.88 (95% confidence interval = 2.91 to 11.88; P = 7.65 × 10(-7)).