Search

Simple Summary: The increasingly wide use of PARP inhibitors in breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers harbouring a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 has highlighted the problem of resistance to therapy. This review summarises the complex interactions between PARP1, cell cycle regulation, response to stress replication, homologous recombination, and other DNA damage repair pathways in the setting of BRCA1/2 mutated cancers that could explain the development of primary or secondary resistance to PARP inhibitors. PARP1 enzyme plays an important role in DNA damage recognition and signalling. PARP inhibitors are approved in breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers harbouring a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, where PARP1 inhibition results mainly in synthetic lethality in cells with impaired homologous recombination. However, the increasingly wide use of PARP inhibitors in clinical practice has highlighted the problem of resistance to therapy. Several different mechanisms of resistance have been proposed, although only the acquisition of secondary mutations in BRCA1/2 has been clinically proved. The aim of this review is to outline the key molecular findings that could explain the development of primary or secondary resistance to PARP inhibitors, analysing the complex interactions between PARP1, cell cycle regulation, PI3K/AKT signalling, response to stress replication, homologous recombination, and other DNA damage repair pathways in the setting of BRCA1/2 mutated cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are among the best-known and most extensively studied hereditary cancer syndromes. Nevertheless, many patients who proved negative at BRCA genetic testing bring pathogenic mutations in other suppressor genes and oncogenes associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers. These genes include TP53 in Li–Fraumeni syndrome, PTEN in Cowden syndrome, mismatch repair (MMR) genes in Lynch syndrome, CDH1 in diffuse gastric cancer syndrome, STK11 in Peutz–Jeghers syndrome, and NF1 in neurofibromatosis type 1 syndrome. To these, several other genes can be added that act jointly with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the double-strand break repair system, such as PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D. Management of primary and secondary cancer prevention in these hereditary cancer syndromes is crucial. In particular, secondary prevention by screening aims to discover precancerous lesions or cancers at their initial stages because early detection could allow for effective treatment and a full recovery. The present review aims to summarize the available literature and suggest proper screening strategies for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndromes other than BRCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research involving epithelial ovarian cancer patients showed that, compared to germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations, somatic BRCA (sBRCA) mutations present a similar positive impact with regard to overall survival (OS) and platinum and PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitor sensitivity. Nevertheless, molecular testing in these studies did not include copy number variation (CNV) analyses of BRCA genes. The aim of this study was to explore the prognostic and predictive role of sBRCA mutations as compared to gBRCA mutations in patients who were also tested for CNVs. Among the 158 patients included in the study, 17.09% of patients carried a pathogenic or likely pathogenic gBRCA variant and 15.19% of patients presented pathogenetic or likely pathogenic sBRCA variants and/or CNVs. Overall, 81.6% of the patients included in this study were diagnosed with a serous histotype, and 77.2% were in advanced stages. Among women diagnosed in advanced stages, gBRCA patients showed better progression-free survival and OS as compared to sBRCA and wild-type patients, whereas sBRCA patients did not show any advantage in outcome as compared to wild-type patients. In this study, the introduction of CNV analyses increased the detection rate of sBRCA mutations, and the resulting classification among gBRCA, sBRCA and wild-type patients was able to properly stratify the prognosis of OC patients. Particularly, sBRCA mutation patients failed to show any outcome advantage as compared to wild-type patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NCCN Guidelines recommend BRCA genetic testing in individuals with a probability >5% of being a carrier. Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness of testing individuals with no tumor family history is still debated, especially when BRCA testing is offered by the national health service. Our analysis evaluated the rate of BRCA pathogenic or likely-pathogenic variants in 159 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients diagnosed ≤60 years, and 109 luminal-like breast cancer (BC) patients diagnosed ≤35 without breast and/or ovarian family histories. In TNBC patients, BRCA mutation prevalence was 22.6% (21.4% BRCA1). Mutation prevalence was 64.2% ≤30 years, 31.8% in patients aged 31–40, 16.1% for those aged 41–50 and 7.9% in 51–60 s. A total of 40% of patients with estrogen receptors (ER) 1–9% were BRCA1 carriers. BRCA detection rate in early-onset BCs was 6.4% (4.6% BRCA2). Mutation prevalence was 0% between 0–25 years, 9% between 26–30 years and 6% between 31–35 years. In conclusion, BRCA testing is recommended in TNBC patients diagnosed ≤60 years, regardless of family cancer history or histotype, and by using immunohistochemical staining <10% for both ER and/PR. In luminal-like early-onset BC, a lower BRCA detection rate was observed, suggesting a role for other predisposing genes along with BRCA genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]