REV1-Polζ maintains the viability of homologous recombination-deficient cancer cells through mutagenic repair of PRIMPOL-dependent ssDNA gaps.

BRCA1/2 mutant tumor cells display an elevated mutation burden, the etiology of which remains unclear. Here, we report that these cells accumulate ssDNA gaps and spontaneous mutations during unperturbed DNA replication due to repriming by the DNA primase-polymerase PRIMPOL. Gap accumulation requires the DNA glycosylase SMUG1 and is exacerbated by depletion of the translesion synthesis (TLS) factor RAD18 or inhibition of the error-prone TLS polymerase complex REV1-Polζ by the small molecule JH-RE-06. JH-RE-06 treatment of BRCA1/2-deficient cells results in reduced mutation rates and PRIMPOL- and SMUG1-dependent loss of viability. Through cellular and animal studies, we demonstrate that JH-RE-06 is preferentially toxic toward HR-deficient cancer cells. Furthermore, JH-RE-06 remains effective toward PARP inhibitor (PARPi)-resistant BRCA1 mutant cells and displays additive toxicity with crosslinking agents or PARPi. Collectively, these studies identify a protective and mutagenic role for REV1-Polζ in BRCA1/2 mutant cells and provide the rationale for using REV1-Polζ inhibitors to treat BRCA1/2 mutant tumors.

PCAF-Mediated Histone Acetylation Promotes Replication Fork Degradation by MRE11 and EXO1 in BRCA-Deficient Cells.

Stabilization of stalled replication forks is a prominent mechanism of PARP (Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase) inhibitor (PARPi) resistance in BRCA-deficient tumors. Epigenetic mechanisms of replication fork stability are emerging but remain poorly understood. Here, we report the histone acetyltransferase PCAF (p300/CBP-associated) as a fork-associated protein that promotes fork degradation in BRCA-deficient cells by acetylating H4K8 at stalled replication forks, which recruits MRE11 and EXO1. A H4K8ac binding domain within MRE11/EXO1 is required for their recruitment to stalled forks. Low PCAF levels, which we identify in a subset of BRCA2-deficient tumors, stabilize stalled forks, resulting in PARPi resistance in BRCA-deficient cells. Furthermore, PCAF activity is tightly regulated by ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related), which phosphorylates PCAF on serine 264 (S264) to limit its association and activity at stalled forks. Our results reveal PCAF and histone acetylation as critical regulators of fork stability and PARPi responses in BRCA-deficient cells, which provides key insights into targeting BRCA-deficient tumors and identifying epigenetic modulators of chemotherapeutic responses.

Restoration of Replication Fork Stability in BRCA1- and BRCA2-Deficient Cells by Inactivation of SNF2-Family Fork Remodelers.

To ensure the completion of DNA replication and maintenance of genome integrity, DNA repair factors protect stalled replication forks upon replication stress. Previous studies have identified a critical role for the tumor suppressors BRCA1 and BRCA2 in preventing the degradation of nascent DNA by the MRE11 nuclease after replication stress. Here we show that depletion of SMARCAL1, a SNF2-family DNA translocase that remodels stalled forks, restores replication fork stability and reduces the formation of replication stress-induced DNA breaks and chromosomal aberrations in BRCA1/2-deficient cells. In addition to SMARCAL1, other SNF2-family fork remodelers, including ZRANB3 and HLTF, cause nascent DNA degradation and genomic instability in BRCA1/2-deficient cells upon replication stress. Our observations indicate that nascent DNA degradation in BRCA1/2-deficient cells occurs as a consequence of MRE11-dependent nucleolytic processing of reversed forks generated by fork remodelers. These studies provide mechanistic insights into the processes that cause genome instability in BRCA1/2-deficient cells.

Effectiveness of evidence-based decision aids for women with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants in the german health care context: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Preventive options include risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgeries and intensified breast surveillance. However, individual decision-making is often associated with decisional conflicts. Two evidence-based decision aids have recently been developed for these women (healthy or with unilateral breast cancer) for the German context to support them in their decision-making process. This study evaluated their effectiveness. METHODS: In a randomized controlled study, women (aged 18-70 years) with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention (IG, n = 230) or control (CG, n = 220) group. All participants received usual care. After baseline survey (t0), IG participants additionally received the DAs. Follow-up surveys were at three (t1) and six (t2) months. Primary outcome was decisional conflict at t1. Secondary analyses included decision status, decision regret, knowledge on risks and preventive options, self-reported psychological symptoms, acceptability of DAs, and preparation for decision-making. RESULTS: Of 450 women recruited, 417 completed t0, 398 completed t1 and 386 completed t2. Compared to CG, IG participants had lower decisional conflict scores at t1 (p = 0.049) and t2 (p = 0.006) and higher scores for knowledge (p = 0.004), acceptability (p = 0.000), and preparation for decision-making (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These DAs can help improve key parameters of decision-making in women with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants and, thus, provide a useful add-on to the current counseling and care concept for these women in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS-ID: DRKS00015823, retrospectively registered 14/06/2019.

Differential Sensitivity of Germline and Somatic BRCA Variants to PARP Inhibitor in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: The introduction of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) as a treatment option for patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) modified the approach of BRCA testing worldwide. In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants on treatment response and survival outcomes in patients diagnosed in our institution. METHODS: A total of 805 HGSOC samples underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant detection by using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Among them, a pathogenic alteration was detected in 104 specimens. Clinicopathological features and germline status were recovered, and alteration types were further characterized. The clinical significance of variant type in terms of response to chemotherapy and to PARPis as well as overall survival were evaluated using univariate analysis. RESULTS: In our cohort, 13.2% of the HGSOC samples harbored a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant, among which 58.7% were inherited. No difference was observed between germline and somatic variants in terms of the gene altered. Interestingly, patients with somatic variants only (no germline) demonstrated better outcomes under PARPi treatment compared to those with germline ones. CONCLUSION: The determination of the inheritance or acquisition of BRCA1 and BRCA2 alterations could provide valuable information for improving management strategies and predicting the outcome of patients with HGSOC.

Frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in ovarian cancer patients in South-East Poland.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are well-established risk factors of breast and ovarian cancer. In our former study, we observed that approximately 6% of unselected ovarian cancer patients in the region of Podkarpacie (South-East Poland) carry BRCA1 causative founder variants, which is significantly lower than in other regions of Poland. Therefore, it is deeply justified to do research based on the sequencing of whole BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. METHODS: We examined 158 consecutive unselected cases of ovarian cancer patients from the region of Podkarpacie. We performed BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes Next-Generation Sequencing study in all cases. RESULTS: Altogether, in 18 of 158 (11.4%) ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic mutations were found. BRCA1 pathogenic variants were detected in 11 of the 158 (7.0%) ovarian cancer cases. 10 of 11 (91%) detected BRCA1 mutations were founder mutations, detectable with the standard test used in Poland. BRCA2 pathogenic variants were found in 7 of the 158 (4.4%) cases. No BRCA2 pathogenic variants were founder mutations. The median age of patients at the diagnosis of the 18 hereditary ovarian cancers was 57.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation carriers among patients with ovarian cancer from the Podkarpacie region is comparable to other regions of Poland. However, a significantly higher percentage of BRCA2 gene mutations was observed, that were not detectable with a standard test for detection of founder mutations. Diagnostics based only on testing the BRCA1/2 Polish founder mutations is characterized by relatively low sensitivity in the case of ovarian cancer patients from South-East Poland and should be supplemented by NGS study, in particular of the BRCA2 gene.

Ovarian cancer surveillance in the clinical follow up of women with known BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants in a large health care system.

OBJECTIVE: To assess CA 125 and transvaginal ultrasound surveillance in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants in a pragmatic clinical setting with>1 year follow up. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in a large integrated health care system of women identified from 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2017 with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant with at least one intact ovary. Demographic and clinical data were collected from date of genetic testing until oophorectomy, an ovarian cancer diagnosis, or 7/1/2019. Primary outcome was frequency and findings of CA 125 tests and ultrasounds performed; secondary outcome was epithelial ovarian cancers diagnosed. RESULTS: There were 1418 women, age ≥ 30 years with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant with at least one intact ovary. Of the total of 1683 ultrasounds and 2437 CA 125 tests done, 1022 ultrasounds and 1709 CA 125 tests were performed for surveillance in 771 women followed >1 year. Of these women 241 (31%) women had no surveillance, and 530 (69%) women underwent any surveillance. Only 108 (20%) underwent regular surveillance. The number who underwent regular surveillance declined each year. Twenty-one women underwent surveillance indicated surgery with only 2 ovarian cancers found by surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Many women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants undergo ultrasound and CA 125 surveillance testing but abnormal surveillance testing led to diagnosis of ovarian cancer in only two cases. These findings question the use of CA 125 and ultrasound surveillance in the clinical setting for ovarian cancer detection in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Characteristics and outcome of BRCA mutated epithelial ovarian cancer patients in Italy: A retrospective multicenter study (MITO 21).

OBJECTIVE: Around 15% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients (pts) harbor a germline BRCA1 or 2 mutation, showing different features than BRCA wild-type pts. The clinical and pathological features of an Italian BRCA mutated EOC cohort were described. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical, pathological and mutational data from a cohort of Italian BRCA mutated EOC pts. treated in 15 MITO centers between 1995 and 2017. RESULTS: Three-hundred thirty-one pts. were recorded. Two-hundred forty (72%) and 91 (27.5%) pts. harbored a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 52 years. The most frequent diagnosis was a high grade serous FIGO III or IV EOC and platinum doublet in first-line was administered to almost all pts. Fifty-three % of them had no residual disease (R = 0) at surgery. Median progression-free-survival (mPFS) after first-line chemotherapy was 29 months. Expected percentage of pts. alive at 5 years was 72.5% (CI 60.2-80.8%) and R = 0 predicted a significantly longer overall survival (OS). Sixty-six pts. (19,9%) had both an EOC and a breast cancer (BC) diagnosis. The first diagnosis was BC in 81,8% of cases with a mean interval between the two diagnoses (IBTDs) of 132.4 months. Mutational data show that the founder mutation c.5266dupC in BRCA1 was the most frequently recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest Italian BRCA mutEOC cohort. The only predictor of longer OS was R = 0. EOC pts. that developed subsequently a BC are long-term survivors.

Impact of national guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of advice.

BACKGROUND: This nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients. METHODS: Clinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008-July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010-July 2011 and July 2012-July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30-50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in ovarian cancer patients from Belarus: update.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are well-established risk factors for breast and ovarian cancer. In Central-Eastern European counties, the founder mutations in the BRCA1 are responsible for a significant proportion of ovarian cancer cases, however, regional differences in the frequencies of various mutations may exist. The spectrum and frequency of BRCA1/2 mutations between ovarian cancer patients have not yet been precisely established in Belarus. METHODS: Two hundred fourteen consecutive unselected cases of ovarian cancer patients from the region of West Belarus were examined. We studied 13 founder mutations in BRCA1 (c.5266dupC, c.4035delA, c.5251C > T, c.181 T > G, c.676delT, c.68_69delAG, c.3700_3704delGTAAA, c.1687C > T, c.3756_3759delGTCT) and in BRCA2 (c.658_659delGT, c.7913_7917delTTCCT, c.3847_3848delGT, c.5946delT) characteristic for Central European population. RESULTS: A BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations were detected in 54 of the 214 (25.2%) ovarian cancer cases. The BRCA1 c.5266dupC mutation was detected in 28 patients, followed by c.4035delA mutation observed in 18 patients. BRCA1 c.3756_3759delGTCT, c.68_69delAG, and c.1687C > T were found in 3, 2, and 1 women, respectively. BRCA2 c.658_659delGT mutation was detected in 2 ovarian cancer patients. The median age of diagnosis of the 54 hereditary ovarian cancers was 57.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of 13 causative BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations in West Belarus was higher than in other Slavic countries. Testing of BRCA1 (c.5266dupC, c.4035delA, c.3756_3759delGTCT, c.68_69delAG, c.1687C > T as well as c.181 T > G) and BRCA2 (c.658_659delGT) mutations should be considered an inexpensive and sensitive test panel for this population.

Frequency and spectrum of founder and non-founder BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large series of Russian breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Slavic countries is characterized by a high prevalence of founder alleles. METHODS: We analyzed a large data set of Russian breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) patients, who were subjected to founder mutation tests or full-length BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis. RESULTS: The most commonly applied test, which included four founder mutations (BRCA1: 5382insC, 4153delA, 185delAG; BRCA2: 6174delT), identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 heterozygosity in 399/8533 (4.7%) consecutive BC patients, 230/2317 (9.9%) OC patients, and 30/118 (25.4%) women with a combination of BC and OC. The addition of another four recurrent BRCA1 mutations to the test (BRCA1 C61G, 2080delA, 3819del5, 3875del4) resulted in evident increase in the number of identified mutation carriers (BC: 16/993 (1.6%); OC: 34/1289 (2.6%); BC + OC: 2/39 (5.1%)). Full-length sequencing of the entire BRCA1 and BRCA2 coding region was applied to 785 women, very most of whom demonstrated clinical signs of BRCA-driven disease, but turned out negative for all described above founder alleles. This analysis revealed additional BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers in 54/282 (19.1%) BC, 50/472 (10.6%) OC, and 13/31 (42%) BC + OC patients. The analysis of frequencies of founder and "rare" BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic alleles across various clinical subgroups (BC vs. OC vs. BC + OC; family history positive vs. negative; young vs. late-onset; none vs. single vs. multiple clinical indicators of BRCA1- or BRCA2-associated disease) revealed that comprehensive BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis increased more than twice the number of identified mutation carriers in all categories of the examined women. CONCLUSION: Full-length BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing is strongly advised to Slavic subjects, who have medical indications for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing but are negative for recurrent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

As panel testing and exome sequencing are increasingly incorporated into clinical care, clinicians must grapple with how to communicate the risks and treatment decisions surrounding breast cancer genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this paper, we examine clinicians' practice of employing BRCA1 and BRCA2 to help contextualize less certain genetic information regarding cancer risk and the possible implications of this practice for patients within the context of an exome sequencing study, NCGENES. We audio-recorded return of results appointments for 14 women who participated in NCGENES, previously had breast cancer, and were suspected of having a hereditary cancer predisposition. These patients were also interviewed four weeks later regarding their understanding of their results. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 were held as the gold standard, where clinicians compared what is known about BRCA to the limited understanding of other breast cancer-related genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were used as anchors to shape patients' understandings of genetic knowledge, risk, and management, illustrating how the information clinicians provide to patients may work as an external anchor. Yet, presenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 as a means of scientific reassurance can run the risk of patients conflating knowledge about certainty of risk with degree of risk after receiving a result for a moderate penetrance gene. This can be further complicated by misperceptions of the precision of cancer predictability attributed to these or other described 'cancer genes' in public media.

Estimating the number of potential family members eligible for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in a "Traceback" approach.

U.S. guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 mutation testing for women diagnosed with high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) to increase recognition of carriers, but most remain unidentified and at risk. Accordingly, an approach termed "Traceback" has been proposed in which probands are retrospectively identified by testing archived pathology specimens, and family members are traced to provide genetic counseling and testing. We used population-based data to estimate the number of family members who might be contacted through such a program. We used incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program to estimate the number of women diagnosed with HGOC from 2005 to 2016, and census data to estimate the number of spouses, offspring, and siblings (both sexes). Using overall survival for HGOC from SEER and all-cause mortality rates from the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, we estimated the number of patients, spouses, offspring, and siblings of HGOC cases living in 2017. Due to the high mortality rate of HGOC, consent from living probands may be possible in only 42% of the cases; consent to test pathology specimens would need to be sought from next of kin for the remainder. In 2017, an estimated 406,919 living next of kin (spouses, siblings, offspring) would be available for potential consent. Testing archived ovarian cancer pathology specimens may enable the identification of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but consent from next of kin would be required in in 58% of cases. Although Traceback offers the possibility of identifying unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, pilot feasibility studies that include assessment of methods to secure consent are needed.

Comprehensive annotation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense variants by functionally validated sequence-based computational prediction models.

PURPOSE: To improve methods for predicting the impact of missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 on protein function. METHODS: Functional data for 248 BRCA1 and 207 BRCA2 variants from assays with established high sensitivity and specificity for damaging variants were used to recalibrate 40 in silico algorithms predicting the impact of variants on protein activity. Additional random forest (RF) and naïve voting method (NVM) metapredictors for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 were developed to increase predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Optimized thresholds for in silico prediction models significantly improved the accuracy of predicted functional effects for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants. In addition, new BRCA1-RF and BRCA2-RF metapredictors showed area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95), respectively. Similarly, the BRCA1-NVM and BRCA2-NVM models had AUCs of 0.93 and 0.90. The RF and NVM models were used to predict the pathogenicity of all possible missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSION: The recalibrated algorithms and new metapredictors significantly improved upon current models for predicting the impact of variants in cancer risk-associated domains of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Prediction of the functional impact of all possible variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 provides important information about the clinical relevance of variants in these genes.

Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in non-selected ovarian carcinoma patients in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic (LP) germline variants are frequent among patients with ovarian carcinoma. However, these variants have not been extensively characterized in patients with ovarian cancer in Brazil. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated clinical characteristics and BRCA1/2 genetic test results from patients with ovarian carcinoma who underwent genetic counseling at A.C.Camargo Cancer Center (Brazil) between 2015 and 2017 and had performed germline genetic testing of BRCA1/2 genes. RESULTS: Among 158 patients, 33 P and LP variants and were found (20.8%), 27 in BRCA1 and six in BRCA2, and six variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Thirteen percent of the patients did not have Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) results. Three P variants in BRCA1 were found in more than one patient: c.5266dupC (p.Gln1756Profs*74), c.3331_3334delCAAG (p.Gln1111Asnfs5*), and c.211A > G (p.Arg71Gly). One LP variant in BRCA1 had not been previously described, c.4153_4154delCT (p.Leu1385Ilefs*5). Patients with previous diagnosis of breast cancer were carriers of P or LP variant in 8 of 12 cases (66.7%), and patients with a family history of ovarian or breast cancer in first- or second-degree relatives were carriers of P or LP variant in 26.7% of cases compared to 16.9% for patients without family history (p = 0.166). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of BRCA1/2 germline P and LP variants is slightly higher than previously described by the largest occidental studies, with a high prevalence of variant c.5266dupC (p.Gln1756Profs*74) in BRCA1 observed. Moreover, we identified a new LP variant.

Analysis of the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 using next-generation sequencing in women with familial breast cancer: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic variants (PVs) of BRCA genes entail a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer in 50-85% of carriers. Their prevalence in different populations has been previously reported. However, there is scarce information regarding the most common PVs of these genes in Latin-Americans. This study identified BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV frequency in a high-risk female population from Northeastern Mexico and determined the association of these mutations with the patients' clinical and pathological characteristics. METHODS: Women were divided into three groups: aged ≤ 40 years at diagnosis and/or risk factors for hereditary breast cancer (n = 101), aged > 50 years with sporadic breast cancer (n = 22), and healthy women (n = 72). Their DNA was obtained from peripheral blood samples and the variants were examined by next-generation sequencing with Ion AmpliSeq BRCA1 and BRCA2 Panel using next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: PVs were detected in 13.8% group 1 patients (BRCA1, 12 patients; BRCA2, 2 patients). Only two patients in group 2 and none in group 3 exhibited BRCA1 PVs. Variants of uncertain significance were reported in 15.8% patients (n = 16). In group 1, patients with the triple-negative subtype, PV frequency was 40% (12/30). Breast cancer prevalence in young women examined in this study was higher than that reported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology (15.5% vs. 5.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The detected BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV frequency was similar to that reported in other populations. Our results indicate that clinical data should be evaluated before genetic testing and highly recommend genetic testing in patients with the triple-negative subtype and other clinical aspects.

Identification of candidate cancer predisposing variants by performing whole-exome sequencing on index patients from BRCA1 and BRCA2-negative breast cancer families.

BACKGROUND: In the majority of familial breast cancer (BC) families, the etiology of the disease remains unresolved. To identify missing BC heritability resulting from relatively rare variants (minor allele frequency ≤ 1%), we have performed whole exome sequencing followed by variant analysis in a virtual panel of 492 cancer-associated genes on BC patients from BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative families with elevated BC risk. METHODS: BC patients from 54 BRCA1 and BRCA2-negative families with elevated BC risk and 120 matched controls were considered for germline DNA whole exome sequencing. Rare variants identified in the exome and in a virtual panel of cancer-associated genes [492 genes associated with different types of (hereditary) cancer] were compared between BC patients and controls. Nonsense, frame-shift indels and splice-site variants (strong protein-damaging variants, called PDAVs later on) observed in BC patients within the genes of the panel, which we estimated to possess the highest probability to predispose to BC, were further validated using an alternative sequencing procedure. RESULTS: Exome- and cancer-associated gene panel-wide variant analysis show that there is no significant difference in the average number of rare variants found in BC patients compared to controls. However, the genes in the cancer-associated gene panel with nonsense variants were more than two-fold over-represented in women with BC and commonly involved in the DNA double-strand break repair process. Approximately 44% (24 of 54) of BC patients harbored 31 PDAVs, of which 11 were novel. These variants were found in genes associated with known or suspected BC predisposition (PALB2, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51C and FANCA) or in predisposing genes linked to other cancer types but not well-studied in the context of familial BC (EXO1, RECQL4, CCNH, MUS81, TDP1, DCLRE1A, DCLRE1C, PDE11A and RINT1) and genes associated with different hereditary syndromes but not yet clearly associated with familial cancer syndromes (ABCC11, BBS10, CD96, CYP1A1, DHCR7, DNAH11, ESCO2, FLT4, HPS6, MYH8, NME8 and TTC8). Exome-wide, only a few genes appeared to be enriched for PDAVs in the familial BC patients compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a series of novel candidate BC predisposition variants/genes. These variants/genes should be further investigated in larger cohorts/case-control studies. Other studies including co-segregation analyses in affected families, locus-specific loss of heterozygosity and functional studies should shed further light on their relevance for BC risk.

Effectiveness of decision aids for female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have an increased lifetime risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Hence, they face the difficult decision of choosing a preventive strategy such as risk-reducing surgeries or intensified breast screening. To help these women during their decision process, several patient decision aids (DA) were developed and evaluated in the last 15 years. Until now, there is no conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of these DA. This study aims 1) to provide the first systematic literature review about DA addressing preventive strategy decisions for female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, 2) to analyze the quality of the existing evidence, 3) to evaluate the effects of DA on decision and information related outcomes, on the actual choice for preventive measure and on health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using six electronic databases (inclusion criteria: DA addressing preventive strategies, female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, 18 to 75 years, knowledge of test result). The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCT) was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The quality of included one-group pretest-posttest design studies was evaluated with the ROBINS-I tool. Outcomes of included studies were extracted and qualitatively summarized. RESULTS: A total of 2093 records were identified. Six studies were included for further evaluation (5 RCT, 1 one-group pretest-posttest design study). One RCT was formally included, but data presentation did not allow for further analyses. The risk of bias was high in three RCT and unclear in one RCT. The risk of bias in the one-group pretest-posttest study was serious. The outcome assessment showed that the main advantages of DA are linked to the actual decision process: Female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers using a DA had less decisional conflict, were more likely to reach a decision and were more satisfied with their decision. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids can support female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers during their decision process by significantly improving decision related outcomes. More high-quality evidence is needed to evaluate possible effects on information related outcomes, health outcomes and the actual choice for preventive measures.

Are VNTRs co-localizing with breast cancer-associated SNPs?

PURPOSE: Several common genetic variants (single-nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) have been shown to be associated with breast cancer (BC) risk in the general population, and to modify BC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Co-localization of variable number of tandem repeats (VNTRs) with these BC-associated SNPS has not been comprehensively studied. METHODS: Cross referencing of genome-wide VNTRs with the known BC genome-wide association studies (GWAS) SNPs significantly associated with increased risk for developing breast cancer was carried out. Analysis was based on the overlap between the VNTRs and 10-kb windows around these BC-susceptibility SNPs. RESULTS: Cross referencing of the 1.2 million TR with the 161 known BC-associated SNPs in the general population led to 690 matches. Of those, in 17 VNTRs, the SNP was within the VNTR. Analysis restricted to loci known to modify BC penetrance in BRCA1 (n = 31) and BRCA2 (n = 33) mutation carriers led to 139 and 170 co-localization matches, respectively. For these, none of the SNPs were within the VNTR. The distances between the SNPs and the VNTRs were not significantly different from what was expected to occur by chance alone (p = 0.61; p = 0.44; p = 0.25, respectively). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that VNTRs co-localize with currently reported SNP tagged BC GWAS loci.

Patients' Views of Treatment-Focused Genetic Testing (TFGT): Some Lessons for the Mainstreaming of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing.

This paper explores patients' views and experiences of undergoing treatment-focused BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing (TFGT), either offered following triaging to clinical genetics (breast cancer) or as part of a mainstreamed care pathway in oncology (ovarian cancer). Drawing on 26 in-depth interviews with patients with breast or ovarian cancer who had undergone TFGT, this retrospective study examines patients' views of genetic testing at this point in their care pathway, focusing on issues, such as initial response to the offer of testing, motivations for undergoing testing, and views on care pathways. Patients were amenable to the incorporation of TFGT at an early stage in their cancer care irrespective of (any) prior anticipation of having a genetic test or family history. While patients were glad to have been offered TFGT as part of their care, some questioned the logic of the test's timing in relation to their cancer treatment. Crucially, patients appeared unable to disentangle the treatment role of TFGT from its preventative function for self and other family members, suggesting that some may undergo TFGT to obtain information for others rather than for self.