Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: insights and unexpected results.

PURPOSE: Genetic predisposition to male breast cancer (MBC) is not well understood. The aim of this study was to better define the predisposition genes contributing to MBC and the utility of germline multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for explaining the etiology of MBCs. METHODS: Clinical histories and molecular results were retrospectively reviewed for 715 MBC patients who underwent MGPT from March 2012 to June 2016. RESULTS: The detection rate of MGPT was 18.1% for patients tested for variants in 16 breast cancer susceptibility genes and with no prior BRCA1/2 testing. BRCA2 and CHEK2 were the most frequently mutated genes (11.0 and 4.1% of patients with no prior BRCA1/2 testing, respectively). Pathogenic variants in BRCA2 [odds ratio (OR) = 13.9; p = 1.92 × 10-16], CHEK2 (OR = 3.7; p = 6.24 × 10-24), and PALB2 (OR = 6.6, p = 0.01) were associated with significantly increased risks of MBC. The average age at diagnosis of MBC was similar for patients with (64 years) and without (62 years) pathogenic variants. CHEK2 1100delC carriers had a significantly lower average age of diagnosis (n = 7; 54 years) than all others with pathogenic variants (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between history of additional primary cancers (non-breast) and family history of male breast cancer for patients with and without pathogenic variants. However, patients with pathogenic variants in BRCA2 were more likely to have a history of multiple primary breast cancers. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that all MBC patients regardless of age of diagnosis, history of multiple primary cancers, or family history of MBC should be offered MGPT.

Multigene Panel Testing Detects Equal Rates of Pathogenic BRCA1/2 Mutations and has a Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Limited BRCA1/2 Analysis Alone in Patients at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recently introduced multigene panel testing including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for hereditary cancer risk has raised concerns with the ability to detect all deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations compared to older methods of sequentially testing BRCA1/2 separately. The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between previous restricted algorithms of genetic testing and newer approaches of multigene testing. METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively from 966 patients who underwent genetic testing at one of three sites from a single institution. Test results were compared between patients who underwent BRCA1/2 testing only (limited group, n = 629) to those who underwent multigene testing with 5-43 cancer-related genes (panel group, n = 337). RESULTS: Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 37 patients, with equivalent rates between limited and panel groups (4.0 vs. 3.6%, respectively, p = 0.86). Thirty-nine patients had a BRCA1/2 VUS, with similar rates between limited and panel groups (4.5 vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.49). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in detection of either BRCA1/2 mutations or VUS between both groups. Of patients undergoing panel testing, an additional 3.9 % (n = 13) had non-BRCA pathogenic mutations and 13.4% (n = 45) had non-BRCA VUSs. Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the most common non-BRCA mutations identified. CONCLUSIONS: Multigene panel testing detects pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations at equivalent rates as limited testing and increases the diagnostic yield. Panel testing increases the VUS rate, mainly as a result of non-BRCA genes. Patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer can safely benefit from up-front, more efficient, multigene panel testing.

Association of Breast and Ovarian Cancers With Predisposition Genes Identified by Large-Scale Sequencing.

Importance: Since the discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2, multiple high- and moderate-penetrance genes have been reported as risk factors for hereditary breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both; however, it is unclear whether these findings represent the complete genetic landscape of these cancers. Systematic investigation of the genetic contributions to breast and ovarian cancers is needed to confirm these findings and explore potentially new associations. Objective: To confirm reported and identify additional predisposition genes for breast or ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this sample of 11 416 patients with clinical features of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both who were referred for genetic testing from 1200 hospitals and clinics across the United States and of 3988 controls who were referred for genetic testing for noncancer conditions between 2014 and 2015, whole-exome sequencing was conducted and gene-phenotype associations were examined. Case-control analyses using the Genome Aggregation Database as a set of reference controls were also conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants among 625 cancer predisposition genes; association of identified predisposition breast or ovarian cancer genes with the breast cancer subtypes invasive ductal, invasive lobular, hormone receptor-positive, hormone receptor-negative, and male, and with early-onset disease. Results: Of 9639 patients with breast cancer, 3960 (41.1%) were early-onset cases (≤45 years at diagnosis) and 123 (1.3%) were male, with men having an older age at diagnosis than women (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [12.8] vs 48.6 [11.4] years). Of 2051 women with ovarian cancer, 445 (21.7%) received a diagnosis at 45 years or younger. Enrichment of pathogenic variants were identified in 4 non-BRCA genes associated with breast cancer risk: ATM (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% CI, 1.67-5.68), CHEK2 (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.40-3.56), PALB2 (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 2.24-17.65), and MSH6 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.35-5.44). Increased risk for ovarian cancer was associated with 4 genes: MSH6 (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.95-9.47), RAD51C (OR, not estimable; false-discovery rate-corrected P = .004), TP53 (OR, 18.50; 95% CI, 2.56-808.10), and ATM (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30-6.32). Neither the MRN complex genes nor CDKN2A was associated with increased breast or ovarian cancer risk. The findings also do not support previously reported breast cancer associations with the ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D, or mismatch repair genes MSH2 and PMS2. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this large-scale exome sequencing of patients and controls shed light on both well-established and controversial non-BRCA predisposition gene associations with breast or ovarian cancer reported to date and may implicate additional breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility gene candidates involved in DNA repair and genomic maintenance.

Differences in TP53 Mutation Carrier Phenotypes Emerge From Panel-Based Testing.

Background: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) has traditionally been identified by single-gene testing (SGT) of TP53 triggered by clinical criteria, but the widespread use of multigene panel tests (MGPTs) has upended this paradigm. We sought to compare the personal and family cancer histories of TP53-positive result (TP53+) carriers who were identified by either MGPT or SGT. Methods: Of 44 310 individuals who underwent testing of TP53 in a single clinical diagnostic laboratory between 2010 and 2014, 44 086 (40 885 MGPT and 3201 SGT) met study eligibility criteria. Personal cancer histories were available for 38 938 subjects. The frequency of germline TP53 results and various phenotypic manifestations were compared according to test type. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: MGPT TP53+ individuals (n = 126) had an older median age at first cancer than SGT TP53+ carriers (n = 96; women: median = 36 vs 28 years, P < .001; and men: median = 40 vs 15 years, P = .004). The median age of breast cancer diagnosis was 40 years in MGPT TP53+ women vs 33 years in SGT TP53+ women (P < .001). In both cohorts, childhood and LFS core cancers, and for women, multiple primary cancers (not multiple breast tumors), were associated with TP53+ results. Established LFS testing criteria were less often met by MGPT TP53+ individuals. Conclusions: MGPT TP53+ individuals differ in phenotype from those ascertained through SGT and are notably older at cancer diagnosis and less likely to meet LFS clinical criteria. These findings suggest that LFS may have a greater phenotypic spectrum than previously appreciated. This has implications for the counseling of MGPT TP53+ individuals. Prospective follow-up of these individuals and families is needed to re-evaluate cancer risks.

Quality of Clinician-Reported Cancer History When Ordering Genetic Testing.

PURPOSE: Clinical history data reported on test requisition forms (TRFs) for hereditary cancer multigene panel testing (MGPT) are routinely used by genetic testing laboratories. More recently, publications have incorporated TRF-based clinical data into studies exploring yield of testing by phenotype and estimating cancer risks for mutation carriers. We aimed to assess the quality of TRF data for patients undergoing MGPT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten percent of patients who underwent hereditary cancer MGPT between January and June 2015 at a clinical laboratory were randomly selected. TRF-reported cancer diagnoses were evaluated for completeness and accuracy for probands and relatives using clinical documents such as pedigrees and chart notes as the comparison standard in cases where these documents were submitted after the time of test order. RESULTS: TRF-reported cancer sites and ages at diagnosis were complete for > 90.0% of proband cancer diagnoses overall, and the completion rate was even higher (> 96.0%) for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and uterine cancers. When reported, these data were accurate on TRFs for > 99.5% of proband cancer sites and > 97.5% of proband ages at diagnosis. Cancer site and age at diagnosis data were also complete on the TRF for the majority of cancers among first- and second-degree relatives. Completeness decreased as relation to the proband became more distant, whereas accuracy remained high across all degrees of relation. CONCLUSION: Data collected as part of cancer genetic risk assessment is completely and accurately reported on TRFs for the majority of probands and their close relatives and is comparable to information directly obtained from clinic notes, particularly for breast and other cancers commonly associated with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Multigene Panel Testing Provides a New Perspective on Lynch Syndrome.

Purpose Most existing literature describes Lynch syndrome (LS) as a hereditary syndrome leading to high risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer mainly as a result of mutations in MLH1 and MSH2. Most of these studies were performed on cohorts with disease suggestive of hereditary CRC and population-based CRC and endometrial cancer cohorts, possibly biasing results. We aimed to describe a large cohort of mismatch repair (MMR) mutation carriers ascertained through multigene panel testing, evaluate their phenotype, and compare the results with those of previous studies. Methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical histories of patients who had multigene panel testing, including the MMR and EPCAM genes, between March 2012 and June 2015 (N = 34,981) and performed a series of statistical comparisons. Results Overall, MSH6 mutations were most frequent, followed by PMS2, MSH2, MLH1, and EPCAM mutations, respectively. Of 528 patients who had MMR mutations, 63 (11.9%) had breast cancer only and 144 (27.3%) had CRC only. When comparing those with breast cancer only to those with CRC only, MSH6 and PMS2 mutations were more frequent than MLH1 and MSH2 mutations ( P = 2.3 × 10-5). Of the 528 patients, 22.2% met BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2) testing criteria and not LS criteria, and 5.1% met neither BRCA1/2 nor LS testing criteria. MSH6 and PMS2 mutations were more frequent than MLH1 and MSH2 mutations among patients who met BRCA1/2 testing criteria but did not meet LS testing criteria ( P = 4.3 × 10-7). Conclusion These results provide a new perspective on LS and suggest that individuals with MSH6 and PMS2 mutations may present with a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer phenotype. These data also highlight the limitations of current testing criteria in identifying these patients, as well as the need for further investigation of cancer risks in patients with MMR mutations.

Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, the relevance of germline variants in other genes from multigene hereditary cancer testing panels is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risks of breast cancer associated with germline variants in cancer predisposition genes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A study population of 65 057 patients with breast cancer receiving germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes with hereditary cancer multigene panels. Associations between pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes and breast cancer risk were estimated in a case-control analysis of patients with breast cancer and Exome Aggregation Consortium reference controls. The women underwent testing between March 15, 2012, and June 30, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast cancer risk conferred by pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age at diagnosis for the 65 057 women included in the analysis was 48.5 (11.1) years. The frequency of pathogenic variants in 21 panel genes identified in 41 611 consecutively tested white women with breast cancer was estimated at 10.2%. After exclusion of BRCA1, BRCA2, and syndromic breast cancer genes (CDH1, PTEN, and TP53), observed pathogenic variants in 5 of 16 genes were associated with high or moderately increased risks of breast cancer: ATM (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.22-3.62), BARD1 (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.31-3.63), CHEK2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.67), PALB2 (OR, 7.46; 95% CI, 5.12-11.19), and RAD51D (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.21-7.88). Conversely, variants in the BRIP1 and RAD51C ovarian cancer risk genes; the MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN MRN complex genes; the MLH1 and PMS2 mismatch repair genes; and NF1 were not associated with increased risks of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study establishes several panel genes as high- and moderate-risk breast cancer genes and provides estimates of breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants in these genes among individuals qualifying for clinical genetic testing.

Breast cancer risk is similar for CHEK2 founder and non-founder mutation carriers.

CHEK2 mutations are associated with increased cancer risks, including breast; however, published risk estimates are limited to those conferred by CHEK2 founder mutations, presenting uncertainty in risk assessment for carriers of other CHEK2 mutations. This study aimed to assess phenotypes and molecular characteristics of CHEK2 mutation carriers (CHEK2 + s) from a multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) cohort, focusing on comparing phenotypes of founder and non-founder CHEK2 + s. Clinical histories and molecular results were reviewed from 45,879 patients who underwent MGPT including CHEK2 at a commercial laboratory. Of individuals tested, 2.4% (n = 1085) were CHEK2 + s. Sixteen individuals harbored biallelic CHEK2 mutations, bringing the total number of CHEK2 mutations detected in this cohort to 1101. Personal/family cancer histories were compared between founder (n = 576; included c.1100delC, p.S428F, c.444 + 1G > A, and EX8_9del) and non-founder (n = 259) CHEK2 + s using Fisher's exact test and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Individuals carrying the p.I157T moderate risk founder mutation (n = 231), additional mutations in non-CHEK2 genes (n = 83), or biallelic mutations (n = 16) were excluded from phenotype analysis, as were cases with no clinical information provided. No significant phenotypic differences were observed between founder and non-founder CHEK2 + s. These data suggest that cancer risks reported for founder mutations may be generalizable to all CHEK2 + s, particularly for breast cancer.

Tracking hypoxic signaling in encapsulated stem cells.

Oxygen is not only a nutrient but also an important signaling molecule whose concentration can influence the fate of stem cells. This study details the development of a marker of hypoxic signaling for use with encapsulated cells. Testing of the marker was performed with adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) in two-dimensional (2D) and 3D culture conditions in varied oxygen environments. The cells were genetically modified with our hypoxia marker, which produces a red fluorescent protein (DsRed-DR), under the control of a hypoxia-responsive element (HRE) trimer. For 3D culture, ADSCs were encapsulated in poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels. The hypoxia marker (termed HRE DsRed-DR) is built on a recombinant adenovirus and ADSCs infected with the marker will display red fluorescence when hypoxic signaling is active. This marker was not designed to measure local oxygen concentration but rather to show how a cell perceives its local oxygen concentration. ADSCs cultured in both 2D and 3D were exposed to 20% or 1% oxygen environments for 96 h. In 2D at 20% O(2), the marker signal was not observed during the study period. In 1% O(2), the fluorescent signal was first observed at 24 h, with maximum prevalence observed at 96 h as 59%±3% cells expressed the marker. In 3D, the signal was observed in both 1% and 20% O(2). The onset of signal in 1% O(2) was observed at 4 h, reaching maximum prevalence at 96 h with 76%±4% cells expressing the marker. Interestingly, hypoxic signal was also observed in 20% O(2), with 13%±3% cells showing positive marker signal after 96 h. The transcription factor subunit hypoxia inducible factor-1α was tracked in these cells over the same time period by immunostaining and western blot analysis. Immunostaining results in 2D correlated well with our marker at 72 h and 96 h, but 3D results did not correlate well. The western blotting results in 2D and 3D correlated well with the fluorescent marker. The HRE DsRed-DR virus can be used to track the onset of this response for encapsulated, mesenchymal stem cells. Due to the importance of hypoxic signaling in determination of stem cell differentiation, this marker could be a useful tool for the tissue engineering community.