Impact of Hormone Receptor Status and Tumor Subtypes of Breast Cancer in Young BRCA Carriers.

BACKGROUND: Hormone receptor expression is a known positive prognostic and predictive factor in breast cancer; however, limited evidence exists on its impact on prognosis of young patients harboring BRCA pathogenic variant (PV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included young patients (≤40 years) diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and harboring germline PV in BRCA genes. We investigated the impact of hormone receptor status on clinical behavior and outcomes of breast cancer. Outcomes of interest (disease-free survival [DFS], breast cancer specific survival [BCSS] and overall survival [OS]) were first investigated according to hormone receptors expression (positive vs. negative), and then according to breast cancer subtype (luminal A-like vs. luminal B-like vs. triple-negative vs. HER2-positive breast cancer). RESULTS: From 78 centers worldwide, 4,709 BRCA carriers were included, of whom 2,143 (45.5%) had hormone receptor-positive and 2,566 (54.5%) hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. Median follow-up was 7.9 years. The rate of distant recurrences was higher in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease (13.1% vs. 9.6%, p<0.001), while the rate of second primary breast cancer was lower (9.1% vs. 14.7%, p<0.001) compared to patients with hormone receptor-negative disease. The 8-years DFS was 65.8% and 63.4% in patients with hormone receptor-positive and negative disease, respectively. The hazard ratio of hormone receptor-positive vs. negative disease changed over time for DFS, BCSS, and OS (p<0.05 for interactions of hormone receptor status and survival time). Patients with luminal A-like breast cancer had the worst long-term prognosis in terms of DFS compared to all the other subgroups (8-years DFS: 60.8% in luminal A-like vs. 63.5% in triple-negative vs. 65.5% in HER2-positive and 69.7% in luminal B-like subtype). CONCLUSIONS: In young BRCA carriers, differences in recurrence pattern and second primary breast cancer among hormone receptor-positive vs. negative disease warrants consideration in counseling patients on treatment, follow-up, and risk-reducing surgery.

Gene-panel testing of breast and ovarian cancer patients identifies a recurrent RAD51C duplication.

Gene-panel sequencing allows comprehensive analysis of multiple genes simultaneously and is now routinely used in clinical mutation testing of high-risk breast and ovarian cancer patients. However, only BRCA1 and BRCA2 are often analyzed also for large genomic changes. Here, we have analyzed 10 clinically relevant susceptibility genes in 95 breast or ovarian cancer patients with gene-panel sequencing including also copy number variants (CNV) analysis for genomic changes. We identified 12 different pathogenic BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, CHEK2, or RAD51C mutations in 18 of 95 patients (19%). BRCA1/2 mutations were observed in 8 patients (8.4%) and CHEK2 protein-truncating mutations in 7 patients (7.4%). In addition, we identified a novel duplication encompassing most of the RAD51C gene. We further genotyped the duplication in breast or ovarian cancer families (n = 1149), in unselected breast (n = 1729) and ovarian cancer cohorts (n = 553), and in population controls (n = 1273). Seven additional duplication carries were observed among cases but none among controls. The duplication associated with ovarian cancer risk (3/590 of all ovarian cancer patients, 0.5%, P = .032 compared with controls) and was found to represent a large fraction of all identified RAD51C mutations in the Finnish population. Our data emphasizes the importance of comprehensive mutation analysis including CNV detection in all the relevant genes.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of BRCA1/2 testing for tailoring cancer treatment and extension of testing to tumour tissue for somatic mutation is moving BRCA1/2 mutation screening from a primarily prevention arena delivered by specialist genetic services into mainstream oncology practice. A considerable number of gene tests will identify rare variants where clinical significance cannot be inferred from sequence information alone. The proportion of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) is likely to grow with lower thresholds for testing and laboratory providers with less experience of BRCA. Most VUS will not be associated with a high risk of cancer but a misinterpreted VUS has the potential to lead to mismanagement of both the patient and their relatives. DESIGN: Members of the Clinical Working Group of ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) global consortium (www.enigmaconsortium.org) observed wide variation in practices in reporting, disclosure and clinical management of patients with a VUS. Examples from current clinical practice are presented and discussed to illustrate potential pitfalls, explore factors contributing to misinterpretation, and propose approaches to improving clarity. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients and their relatives would all benefit from an improved level of genetic literacy. Genetic laboratories working with clinical geneticists need to agree on a clinically clear and uniform format for reporting BRCA test results to non-geneticists. An international consortium of experts, collecting and integrating all available lines of evidence and classifying variants according to an internationally recognized system, will facilitate reclassification of variants for clinical use.

Genetic counselors' practices and confidence regarding variant of uncertain significance results and reclassification from BRCA testing.

Studies indicate variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results are challenging for genetic counselors and patients, often resulting in negative patient outcomes. Genetic counselors' current practices regarding VUS are unknown. This study utilized a national survey of genetic counselors (n = 932) to examine current practices and confidence related to disclosing BRCA VUS results and reclassification information. For participants (n = 398), descriptive statistics were calculated regarding patient demographic characteristics, practices and confidence, and cross tabulation was used to identify participant's actions when receiving a reclassified VUS. Upon receiving a BRCA VUS report, the majority reported providing patients with information about the frequency with which their VUS was seen and patient ancestry, but a minority discussed DNA banking. Most were confident in their understanding of, and ability to explain, VUS results to patients, but felt less confident about achieving high levels of patient understanding. Upon reclassification, the majority reported calling the patient and mailing the results, but when the reclassification was deleterious, the majority also met with the patient face-to-face. Given the lack of standard professional guidelines about informing patients of initial and reclassified VUS results, this overview provides important insight into genetic counselors' current practices and confidence.

Mutations in the ryanodine receptor gene in central core disease and malignant hyperthermia.

Central core disease (CCD) of muscle is an inherited myopathy which is closely associated with malignant hyperthermia (MH) in humans. CCD has recently been shown to be tightly linked to the ryanodine receptor gene (RYR1) and mutations in this gene are known to be present in MH. Mutation screening of RYR1 has led to the identification of two previously undescribed mutations in different CCD pedigrees. One of these mutations was also detected in an unrelated MH pedigree whose members are asymptomatic of CCD. The data suggest a model to explain how a single mutation may result in two apparently distinct clinical phenotypes.

Mutations in the BRCA1 gene in families with early-onset breast and ovarian cancer.

We analysed 50 probands with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer for germline mutations in the coding region of the BRCA1 candidate gene, using single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis on PCR-amplified genomic DNA. A total of eight putative disease-causing alterations were identified: four of these are frameshifts and two are nonsense mutations. In addition, we found two missense mutations, one of which changes the final cysteine of the BRCA1 zinc finger motif to glycine. These data are consistent with a tumour suppressor model, and support the notion that this candidate gene is in fact BRCA1. The heterogeneity of mutations, coupled with the large size of the gene, indicates that clinical application of BRCA1 mutation testing will be technically challenging.

BRCA2 germline mutations in male breast cancer cases and breast cancer families.

The breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2 on chromosome 13q12-13, was recently isolated. Mutations in BRCA2 are thought to account for as much as 35% of all inherited breast cancer as wall as a proportion of inherited ovarian cancer. Many BRCA2-linked families also contain cases of male breast cancer. We have analysed germline DNA from 50 males with breast cancer (unselected for family history) and 26 individuals from site-specific female breast and breast-ovarian cancer families for mutations in BRCA2. All 17 breast-ovarian cancer families have been screened for BRCA1 coding region mutations and none were detected. Conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis (CSGE) analysis of PCR-amplified DNA followed by direct sequencing was used to detect sequence variants. Three of eleven individuals carry the same mutation, all are of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, supporting the observation by Neuhausen et al. in this issue that there is a common mutation in this population. Eleven truncating mutations and nine polymorphisms were identified -- all were coding region variants. No loss-of-transcript mutations were identified in the sixteen samples for which this analysis was possible. Seven of the nine disease-associated mutations were detected in the 50 men with breast cancers; for thus in our series, BRCA2 mutations account for 14% of male breast cancer, all but one of which had a family history of male and/or female breast cancer.

The complete BRCA2 gene and mutations in chromosome 13q-linked kindreds.

Breast carcinoma is the most common malignancy among women in developed countries. Because family history remains the strongest single predictor of breast cancer risk, attention has focused on the role of highly penetrant, dominantly inherited genes in cancer-prone kindreds (1). BRCA1 was localized to chromosome 17 through analysis of a set of high-risk kindreds (2), and then identified four years later by a positional cloning strategy (3). BRCA2 was mapped to chromosomal 13q at about the same time (4). Just fifteen months later, Wooster et al. (5) reported a partial BRCA2 sequence and six mutations predicted to cause truncation of the BRCA2 protein. While these findings provide strong evidence that the identified gene corresponds to BRCA2, only two thirds of the coding sequence and 8 out of 27 exons were isolated and screened; consequently, several questions remained unanswered regarding the nature of BRCA2 and the frequency of mutations in 13q-linked families. We have now determined the complete coding sequence and exonic structure of BRCA2 (GenBank accession #U43746), and examined its pattern of expression. Here, we provide sequences for a set of PCR primers sufficient to screen the entire coding sequence of BRCA2 using genomic DNA. We also report a mutational analysis of BRCA2 in families selected on the basis of linkage analysis and/or the presence of one or more cases of male breast cancer. Together with the specific mutations described previously, our data provide preliminary insight into the BRCA2 mutation profile.

PREDICT Plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer that includes HER2.

BACKGROUND: Predict (www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online, breast cancer prognostication and treatment benefit tool. The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of HER2 status in a new version (Predict+), and to compare its performance with the original Predict and Adjuvant!. METHODS: The prognostic effect of HER2 status was based on an analysis of data from 10 179 breast cancer patients from 14 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. The hazard ratio estimates were incorporated into Predict. The validation study was based on 1653 patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer identified from the British Columbia Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit. Predicted overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) for Predict+, Predict and Adjuvant! were compared with observed outcomes. RESULTS: All three models performed well for both OS and BCSS. Both Predict models provided better BCSS estimates than Adjuvant!. In the subset of patients with HER2-positive tumours, Predict+ performed substantially better than the other two models for both OS and BCSS. CONCLUSION: Predict+ is the first clinical breast cancer prognostication tool that includes tumour HER2 status. Use of the model might lead to more accurate absolute treatment benefit predictions for individual patients.

Evaluation of the XRCC1 gene as a phenotypic modifier in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Results from the consortium of investigators of modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2.

BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair are good candidates to be tested as phenotypic modifiers for carriers of mutations in the high-risk susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. The base excision repair (BER) pathway could be particularly interesting given the relation of synthetic lethality that exists between one of the components of the pathway, PARP1, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we have evaluated the XRCC1 gene that participates in the BER pathway, as phenotypic modifier of BRCA1 and BRCA2. METHODS: Three common SNPs in the gene, c.-77C>T (rs3213245) p.Arg280His (rs25489) and p.Gln399Arg (rs25487) were analysed in a series of 701 BRCA1 and 576 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: An association was observed between p.Arg280His-rs25489 and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers, with rare homozygotes at increased risk relative to common homozygotes (hazard ratio: 22.3, 95% confidence interval: 14.3-34, P<0.001). This association was further tested in a second series of 4480 BRCA1 and 3016 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATION: No evidence of association was found when the larger series was analysed which lead us to conclude that none of the three SNPs are significant modifiers of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers.

Centrosome-related genes, genetic variation, and risk of breast cancer.

Centrosome amplification has been detected in premalignant lesions and in situ tumors in the breast and in over 70% of invasive breast tumors, and has been associated with aneuploidy and tumor development. Based on these observations, the contribution of commonly inherited genetic variation in candidate genes related to centrosome structure and function to breast cancer risk was evaluated in an association study. Seven-hundred and 82 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 101 centrosomal genes were analyzed in 798 breast cancer cases and 843 controls from the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study to assess the association between these SNPs (both individually and combined) and risk of breast cancer in this population. Eleven SNPs out of 782 from six genes displayed associations with breast cancer risk (P < 0.01). Haplotypes in five genes also displayed significant associations with risk. A two SNP combination of rs10145182 in NIN and rs2134808 in the TUBG1 locus (P-interaction = 0.00001), suggested SNPs in mediators of microtubule nucleation from the centrosome contribute to breast cancer. Evaluation of the simultaneous significance of all SNPs in the centrosome pathway suggested that the centrosome pathway is highly enriched (P = 4.76 × 10(-50)) for SNPs that are associated with breast cancer risk. Collections of weakly associated genetic variants in the centrosome pathway, rather than individual highly significantly associated SNPs, may account for a putative role for the centrosome pathway in predisposition to breast cancer.

Variation in genes required for normal mitosis and risk of breast cancer.

The down-regulation of genes involved in normal cell division can cause aberrant mitoses and increased cell death. Surviving cells exhibit aneuploidy and/or polyploidy. Since mitotic disruption has been linked with tumor development and progression, alterations in the expression or activity of these mitotic regulators may contribute to breast tumor formation. We evaluated associations between common inherited variation in these genes and breast cancer risk. Two hundred and five tagging and candidate functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in 30 genes required for normal cell division were genotyped in 798 breast cancer cases and 843 controls from the Mayo Clinic breast cancer study. Two variants in EIF3A (rs10787899 and rs3824830; P < 0.01) and four variants in SART1 (rs660118, rs679581, rs754532, and rs735942; P(trend) < or = 0.02) were significantly associated with an altered risk of breast cancer along with single variants in RRM2, PSCD3, C11orf51, CDC16, SNW1, MFAP1, and CDC2 (P < 0.05). Variation in both SART1 (P = 0.009) and EIF3A (P = 0.02) was also significant at the gene level. Analyses suggested that SART1 SNPs rs660118 and rs679581 accounted for the majority of the association of that gene with breast cancer. The observed associations between breast cancer risk and genetic variation in the SART1 and EIF3A genes that are required for maintenance of normal mitosis suggest a direct role for these genes in the development of breast cancer.

Cell cycle genes and ovarian cancer susceptibility: a tagSNP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of the cell cycle is a hallmark of many cancers including ovarian cancer, a leading cause of gynaecologic cancer mortality worldwide. METHODS: We examined single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (n=288) from 39 cell cycle regulation genes, including cyclins, cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) and CDK inhibitors, in a two-stage study. White, non-Hispanic cases (n=829) and ovarian cancer-free controls (n=941) were genotyped using an Illumina assay. RESULTS: Eleven variants in nine genes (ABL1, CCNB2, CDKN1A, CCND3, E2F2, CDK2, E2F3, CDC2, and CDK7) were associated with risk of ovarian cancer in at least one genetic model. Seven SNPs were then assessed in four additional studies with 1689 cases and 3398 controls. Association between risk of ovarian cancer and ABL1 rs2855192 found in the original population [odds ratio, OR(BB vs AA) 2.81 (1.29-6.09), P=0.01] was also observed in a replication population, and the association remained suggestive in the combined analysis [OR(BB vs AA) 1.59 (1.08-2.34), P=0.02]. No other SNP associations remained suggestive in the replication populations. CONCLUSION: ABL1 has been implicated in multiple processes including cell division, cell adhesion and cellular stress response. These results suggest that characterization of the function of genetic variation in this gene in other ovarian cancer populations is warranted.

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA).

BACKGROUND: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. RESULTS: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04, P = 0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89-1.06, P = 0.5) mutation carriers. CONCLUSION: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out.

Rapid progression of prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Men with BRCA2 mutations have been found to be at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. There is a recent report that BRCA2 carriers with prostate cancer have poorer survival than noncarrier prostate cancer patients. In this study, we compared survival of men with a BRCA2 mutation and prostate cancer with that of men with a BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer. We obtained the age at diagnosis, age at death or current age from 182 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA2 mutation and from 119 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA1 mutation. The median survival from diagnosis was 4.0 years for men with a BRCA2 mutation vs 8.0 years for men with a BRCA1 mutation, and the difference was highly significant (P<0.01). It may be important to develop targeted chemotherapies to treat prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Localization of BRCA1 and a splice variant identifies the nuclear localization signal.

Inherited mutations in BRCA1 confer susceptibility to breast and ovarian neoplasms. However, the function of BRCA1 and the role of BRCA1 in noninherited cancer remain unknown. Characterization of alternately spliced forms of BRCA1 may identify functional regions; thus, we constructed expression vectors of BRCA1 and a splice variant lacking exon 11, designated BRCA1 delta 672-4095. Immunofluorescence studies indicate nuclear localization of BRCA1 but cytoplasmic localization of BRCA1 delta 672-4095. Two putative nuclear localization signals (designated NLS1 and NLS2) were identified in exon 11; immunofluorescence studies indicate that only NLS1 is required for nuclear localization. RNA analysis indicates the expression of multiple, tissue-specific forms of BRCA1 RNAs; protein analysis with multiple antibodies suggests that at least three BRCA1 isoforms are expressed, including those lacking exon 11. The results suggest that BRCA1 is a nuclear protein and raise the possibility that splicing is one form of regulation of BRCA1 function by alteration of the subcellular localization of expressed proteins.

Genetic, functional, and histopathological evaluation of two C-terminal BRCA1 missense variants.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of BRCA1 missense sequence variants remain uncharacterized for their possible effect on protein expression and function, and therefore are unclassified in terms of their pathogenicity. BRCA1 plays diverse cellular roles and it is unlikely that any single functional assay will accurately reflect the total cellular implications of missense mutations in this gene. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the effect of two BRCA1 variants, 5236G>C (G1706A) and 5242C>A (A1708E) on BRCA1 function, and to survey the relative usefulness of several assays to direct the characterisation of other unclassified variants in BRCA genes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from a range of bioinformatic, genetic, and histopathological analyses, and in vitro functional assays indicated that the 1708E variant was associated with the disruption of different cellular functions of BRCA1. In transient transfection experiments in T47D and 293T cells, the 1708E product was mislocalised to the cytoplasm and induced centrosome amplification in 293T cells. The 1708E variant also failed to transactivate transcription of reporter constructs in mammalian transcriptional transactivation assays. In contrast, the 1706A variant displayed a phenotype comparable to wildtype BRCA1 in these assays. Consistent with functional data, tumours from 1708E carriers showed typical BRCA1 pathology, while tumour material from 1706A carriers displayed few histopathological features associated with BRCA1 related tumours. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive range of genetic, bioinformatic, and functional analyses have been combined for the characterisation of BRCA1 unclassified sequence variants. Consistent with the functional analyses, the combined odds of causality calculated for the 1706A variant after multifactorial likelihood analysis (1:142) indicates a definitive classification of this variant as "benign". In contrast, functional assays of the 1708E variant indicate that it is pathogenic, possibly through subcellular mislocalisation. However, the combined odds of 262:1 in favour of causality of this variant does not meet the minimal ratio of 1000:1 for classification as pathogenic, and A1708E remains formally designated as unclassified. Our findings highlight the importance of comprehensive genetic information, together with detailed functional analysis for the definitive categorisation of unclassified sequence variants. This combination of analyses may have direct application to the characterisation of other unclassified variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: In women with a family history of breast cancer, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent breast cancer of approximately 90%. We examined the association between bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast cancer risk in women at high risk for breast cancer who also had mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. METHODS: We obtained blood samples from 176 of the 214 high-risk women who participated in our previous retrospective cohort study of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. We used conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis and direct sequence analysis of the blood specimens to identify women with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. The carriers' probabilities of developing breast cancer were estimated from two different penetrance models. RESULTS: We identified 26 women with an alteration in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Eighteen of the mutations were considered to be deleterious and eight to be of uncertain clinical significance. None of the 26 women has developed breast cancer after a median of 13.4 years of follow-up (range, 5.8-28.5 years). Three of the 214 women are known to have developed a breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy. For two of these women, BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening was negative, and no blood specimen was available for the third. Estimations of the effectiveness of prophylactic mastectomy were performed, considering this woman as both a mutation carrier and a noncarrier. These calculations predicted that six to nine breast cancers should have developed among the mutation carriers, which translates into a risk reduction, after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, of 89.5%-100% (95% confidence interval = 41.4% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of subsequent breast cancer not only in women identified as being at high risk on the basis of a family history of breast cancer but also in known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 have a limited role in familial prostate cancer.

Epidemiological studies have suggested that the breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, may be involved in the development of prostate cancer. Several studies have screened prostate cancer populations for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, with few mutations identified. In this study, 22 high-risk prostate cancer families (at least three cases of prostate cancer) were screened by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis (CSGE) for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. To maximize the chance of finding mutations in these two genes, families were also selected for the presence of at least two cases of breast and/or ovarian cancer. We identified one previously reported BRCA2 missense mutation and two previously unreported BRCA2 intron polymorphisms. No BRCA1 or BRCA2 truncating mutations were detected. Thus, BRCA1 and BRCA2 appear to have a limited role in familial prostate cancer, and families with both prostate and breast cancer may result from mutations in other predisposition genes.