Search

Purpose: It is not known whether the risk of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers after age 60 is high enough to justify intensive screening or prophylactic surgery. Thus, we conducted a prospective analysis of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from age 60 until age 80. Methods: Subjects had no history of cancer and both breasts intact at age 60 (n = 699). Women were followed until a breast cancer diagnosis, prophylactic bilateral mastectomy or death. We calculated the annual cancer rate and cumulative incidence of breast cancer (invasive and in situ) from age 60 to age 80. We assessed the associations between hormone replacement therapy, family history of breast cancer and bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 7.9years, 61 invasive and 20 in situ breast cancers were diagnosed in the cohort. The mean annual rate of invasive breast cancer was 1.8% for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 1.7% for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The cumulative risk of invasive breast cancer from age 60 to 80 was 20.1% for women with a BRCA1 mutation and was 17.3% for women with a BRCA2 mutation. Hormone replacement therapy, family history and oophorectomy were not associated with breast cancer risk. Conclusions: Findings from this large prospective study indicate that the risk of developing breast cancer remains high after age 60 in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. These findings warrant further evaluation of the role of breast cancer screening in older mutation carriers.

The first International Workshop of the ATM and Cancer Risk group focusing on the role of Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) gene in cancer was held on December 4 and 5, 2019 at Institut Curie in Paris, France. It was motivated by the fact that germline ATM pathogenic variants have been found to be associated with different cancer types. However, due to the lack of precise age-, sex-, and site-specific risk estimates, no consensus on management guidelines for variant carriers exists, and the clinical utility of ATM variant testing is uncertain. The meeting brought together epidemiologists, geneticists, biologists and clinicians to review current knowledge and on-going challenges related to ATM and cancer risk. This report summarizes the meeting sessions content that covered the latest results in family-based and population-based studies, the importance of accurate variant classification, the effect of radiation exposures for ATM variant carriers, and the characteristics of ATM-deficient tumors. The report concludes that ATM variant carriers outside of the context of Ataxia-Telangiectasia may benefit from effective cancer risk management and therapeutic strategies and that efforts to set up large-scale studies in the international framework to achieve this goal are necessary.

The BRCA Challenge is a long-term data-sharing project initiated within the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to aggregate BRCA1 and BRCA2 data to support highly collaborative research activities. Its goal is to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the iconic cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Initially, reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org. The purpose of the BRCA Exchange is to provide the community with a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype. More than 20,000 variants have been aggregated, three times the number found in the next-largest public database at the project’s outset, of which approximately 7,250 have expert classifications. The data set is based on shared information from existing clinical databases—Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC), ClinVar, and the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)—as well as population databases, all linked to a single point of access. The BRCA Challenge has brought together the existing international Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium expert panel, along with expert clinicians, diagnosticians, researchers, and database providers, all with a common goal of advancing our understanding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation. Ongoing work includes direct contact with national centers with access to BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic data to encourage data sharing, development of methods suitable for extraction of genetic variation at the level of individual laboratory reports, and engagement with participant communities to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of genetic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2., Author summary The goal of this study and paper has been to develop an international resource to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org, to provide a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype.

Purpose BRCA1/2 mutations increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer in men. Common genetic variants modify cancer risks for female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We investigated-for the first time to our knowledge-associations of common genetic variants with breast and prostate cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/ 2 mutations and implications for cancer risk prediction. Materials and Methods We genotyped 1,802 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 by using the custom Illumina OncoArray. We investigated the combined effects of established breast and prostate cancer susceptibility variants on cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by constructing weighted polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using published effect estimates as weights. Results In male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, PRS that was based on 88 female breast cancer susceptibility variants was associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation of PRS, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; P = 8.6 × 10-6). Similarly, PRS that was based on 103 prostate cancer susceptibility variants was associated with prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per SD of PRS, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Large differences in absolute cancer risks were observed at the extremes of the PRS distribution. For example, prostate cancer risk by age 80 years at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS varies from 7% to 26% for carriers of BRCA1 mutations and from 19% to 61% for carriers of BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Conclusion PRSs may provide informative cancer risk stratification for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations that might enable these men and their physicians to make informed decisions on the type and timing of breast and prostate cancer risk management. We thank Sue Healey for her contribution to CIMBA, in particular, for taking on the task of mutation classification with Olga Sinilnikova. BCFR Australia: We acknowledge Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Gillian Dite, Helen Tsimiklis. BCFR Ontario: We thank members and participants in the Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry for their contributions to the study. BFBOCC-LT (Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium Lithuanian section): We acknowledge Vilius Rudaitis and Laimonas Griˇskeviˇcius. CBCS (Copenhagen Breast Cancer Study, Rigshospitalet): We thank Bent Ejlertsen Ejlertsen and Anne-Marie Gerdes for the recruitment and genetic counseling of participants. CNIO (Spanish National Cancer Centre): We thank Alicia Barroso, Rosario Alonso, and Guillermo Pita for their assistance. COH-CCGCRN (City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network): Patients were recruited for study from the City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network. CONSIT TEAM:We acknowledge Daniela Zaffaroni of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy; Brunella Pilato of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy; and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory, Milan, Italy. FCCC (Fox Chase Cancer Center):We thank Jo EllenWeaver and Betsy Bove, MD, for their technical support. GEMO (GeneticModifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers):We pay a tribute to Olga M. Sinilnikova, who with Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, initiated and coordinated GEMO until she died on June 30, 2014, and we thank all the GEMO collaborating groups for their contribution to this study. GEMO Collaborating Centers are: Coordinating Centres, Unit´e Mixte de G´en´etique Constitutionnelle des Cancers Fr´equents, Hospices Civils de Lyon–Centre L´eon B´erard, Equipe G´en´etique du cancer du sein, Centre de Rechercheen Canc´erologie de Lyon: Olga Sinilnikova (deceased), Sylvie Mazoyer, Francesca Damiola, Laure Barjhoux, Carole Verny-Pierre, M´elanie L´eone, Nadia Boutry-Kryza, Alain Calender, Sophie Giraud; and Service de G´en´etique Oncologique, Institut Curie, Paris: Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Marion Gauthier-Villars, Bruno Buecher, Claude Houdayer, Etienne Rouleau, Lisa Golmard, Agn`es Collet, Virginie Moncoutier, Muriel Belotti, Antoine de Pauw, Camille Elan, Catherine Nogues, Emmanuelle Fourme, Anne-Marie Birot; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif: Brigitte Bressac-de-Paillerets, Olivier Caron, Marine Guillaud- Bataille; Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont–Ferrand: Yves-Jean Bignon, Nancy Uhrhammer; Centre L´eon B´erard, Lyon: Christine Lasset, Val´erie Bonadona, Sandrine Handallou; Centre François Baclesse, Caen: Agn`es Hardouin, Pascaline Berthet, Dominique Vaur, Laurent Castera; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille: Hagay Sobol, Violaine Bourdon, Tetsuro Noguchi, Audrey Remenieras, François Eisinger; CHUArnaud-de-Villeneuve,Montpellier: Isabelle Coupier, Pascal Pujol; Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille: Jean-Philippe Peyrat, Jo¨elle Fournier, Françoise R´evillion, Philippe Vennin (deceased), Claude Adenis; Centre Paul Strauss, Strasbourg: Dani`ele Muller, Jean-Pierre Fricker; Institut Bergoni´e, Bordeaux: Emmanuelle Barouk-Simonet, Françoise Bonnet, Virginie Bubien, Nicolas Sevenet, Michel Longy; Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse: Christine Toulas, Rosine Guimbaud, Laurence Gladieff, Viviane Feillel; CHU Grenoble: Dominique Leroux, H´el`ene Dreyfus, Christine Rebischung, Magalie Peysselon; CHU Dijon: Fanny Coron, Laurence Faivre; CHU St-Etienne: Fabienne Prieur, Marine Lebrun, Caroline Kientz; HˆotelDieu Centre Hospitalier, Chamb´ery: Sandra Fert Ferrer; Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice: Marc Fr´enay; CHU Limoges: Laurence V´enat-Bouvet; CHU Nantes: Capucine Delnatte; CHU Bretonneau, Tours: Isabelle Mortemousque; Groupe Hospitalier Piti´e-Salp´etri`ere, Paris: Florence Coulet, Chrystelle Colas, Florent Soubrier, MathildeWarcoin; CHU Vandoeuvre-les- Nancy: Johanna Sokolowska, Myriam Bronner; CHU Besançon: Marie-Agn`es Collonge-Rame, Alexandre Damette; Creighton University, Omaha, NE: Henry T. Lynch, Carrie L. Snyder. G-FAST (Ghent University Hospital): B.P. is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. We acknowledge the technical support of Ilse Coeneen Brecht Crombez. HCSC (Hospital Clinico San Carlos): We acknowledge Alicia Tosar and Paula Diaque for their technical assistance. HEBCS (Helsinki Breast Cancer Study):We thank Taru A. Muranen, Carl Blomqvist, MD, Kirsimari Aaltonen, MD, Irja Erkkil¨a, RN, and Virpi Palola, RN, for their help with the HEBCS data and samples. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON): HEBON consists of the following collaborating centers: Coordinating center: Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam: M.A. Rookus, F.B.L. Hogervorst, F.E. van Leeuwen, S. Verhoef, M.K. Schmidt, N.S. Russell, J.L. de Lange, R. Wijnands; Erasmus Medical Center: J.M. Coll´ee, A.M.W. van den Ouweland, M.J. Hooning, C. Seynaeve, C.H.M. van Deurzen, I.M. Obdeijn; Leiden University Medical Center: C.J. van Asperen, J.T. Wijnen, R.A.E.M. Tollenaar, P. Devilee, T.C.T.E.F. van Cronenburg; Radboud University NijmegenMedical Center: C.M. Kets, A.R.Mensenkamp; UniversityMedical Center Utrecht: M.G.E.M. Ausems, R.B. van der Luijt, C.C. van der Pol; Amsterdam Medical Center: C.M. Aalfs, T.A.M. van Os; Vrije Universiteit Medical Center: J.J.P. Gille, Q.Waisfisz, H.E.J. Meijers-Heijboer; University Hospital Maastricht: E.B. G´omez-Garcia, M.J. Blok; University Medical Center Groningen: J.C. Oosterwijk, A.H. van der Hout, M.J.Mourits, G.H. de Bock; The Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden: H.F. Vasen; The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL): S. Siesling, J. Verloop; The Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA): L.I.H. Overbeek. HEBON thanks the registration teams of IKNL and PALGA for part of the data collection. HUNBOCS (Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary):We thank the Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study Group members (Janos Papp, Aniko Bozsik, Judit Franko, Maria Balogh, Gabriella Domokos, Judit Ferenczi, Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary) and the clinicians and patients for their contributions to this study. HVH (University Hospital Vall d’Hebron): We thank the Cellex Foundation for providing research facilities and equipment. ICO (Institut Catal`a d’Oncologia): We thank the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Gabriel Capella, MD. INHERIT (INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility):We thank Martine Dumont, MD, Martine Tranchant and St´ephane Dubois for QC, sample management and skillful assistance. J.S. is Chair holder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics. J.S. and P.S. were part of the QC and Genotyping coordinating group of iCOGS and Oncoarray (BCAC and CIMBA). IPOBCS (Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto jco.org © 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Polygenic Risk Scores in Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Downloaded from ascopubs.org by CNIO-FUND on September 27, 2019 from 193.147.150.201 Copyright © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. Breast Cancer Study): We thank Catarina Santos, MD, for her skillful contribution to the study. kConFab (Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer): We thank Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, all the kConFab research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:We acknowledge Lauren Jacobs, MD. OCGN (Ontario Cancer Genetics Network): We thank members and participants in the Ontario Cancer Genetics Network for their contributions to the study. OSUCCG (The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center): Kevin Sweet, Caroline Craven, Julia Cooper, Leigha Senter, and Michelle O’Conor were instrumental in accrual of study participants, ascertainment of medical records, and database management. SEABASS (South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study): We thank Yip Cheng Har, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, Phuah Sze Yee, Norhashimah Hassan, and all the research nurses, research assistants, and doctors involved in the MyBrCa Study for assistance in patient recruitment, data collection, and sample preparation. In addition, we thank Philip Iau, Sng Jen-Hwei, and Sharifah Nor Akmal for contributing samples from the Singapore Breast Cancer Study and the HUKM-HKL Study, respectively. SWE-BRCA (Swedish Breast Cancer Study): Swedish scientists participating as SWE-BRCA collaborators are: from Lund University and University Hospital: A° ke Borg, H°akan Olsson, Helena Jernstr¨om, Karin Henriksson, Katja Harbst, Maria Soller, Ulf Kristoffersson; from Gothenburg Sahlgrenska University Hospital: Anna O¨ fverholm, Margareta Nordling, Per Karlsson, Zakaria Einbeigi; from Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital: Anna vonWachenfeldt, Annelie Liljegren, Annika Lindblom, Brita Arver, Gisela Barbany Bustinza, Johanna Rantala; from Ume°a University Hospital: Beatrice Melin, Christina Edwinsdotter Ardnor, Monica Emanuelsson; from Uppsala University: Hans Ehrencrona, Maritta Hellstr¨om Pigg, Richard Rosenquist; from Link¨oping University Hospital: Marie Stenmark-Askmalm, Sigrun Liedgren. University of Chicago: O.I.O. is an ACS Clinical Research Professor. We thank Cecilia Zvocec, Qun Niu, physicians, genetic counsellors, research nurses, and staff of the Cancer Risk Clinic for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to our program. VFCTG (Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group):We acknowledge Geoffrey Lindeman, Marion Harris, Martin Delatycki of the Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group.We thank Sarah Sawyer and Rebecca Driessen for assembling these data and Ella Thompson for performing all DNA amplification. © 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY Sí

Background: We previously reported significant associations between genetic variants in insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS1) and breast cancer risk in women carrying BRCA1 mutations. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the IRS1 variants modified ovarian cancer risk and were associated with breast cancer risk in a larger cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods:IRS1 rs1801123, rs1330645, and rs1801278 were genotyped in samples from 36 centers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Data were analyzed by a retrospective cohort approach modeling the associations with breast and ovarian cancer risks simultaneously. Analyses were stratified by BRCA1 and BRCA2 status and mutation class in BRCA1 carriers. Results: Rs1801278 (Gly972Arg) was associated with ovarian cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR, 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06–1.92; P = 0.019) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.39–3.52, P = 0.0008). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, the breast cancer risk was higher in carriers with class II mutations than class I mutations (class II HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.28–2.70; class I HR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.69–1.09; Pdifference, 0.0006). Rs13306465 was associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 class II mutation carriers (HR, 2.42; P = 0.03). Conclusion: The IRS1 Gly972Arg single-nucleotide polymorphism, which affects insulin-like growth factor and insulin signaling, modifies ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 class II mutation carriers. Impact: These findings may prove useful for risk prediction for breast and ovarian cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(8); 1362–70. ©2012 AACR.

Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer.1 It is important to identify risk factors for breast cancer among genetically predisposed women, to devise strategies to minimize the risk. Several lines of evidence link diabetes and breast cancer.2,3 Insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia, which predispose to diabetes, may increase the risk of breast cancer in the general population,4 and hyperinsulinemia may promote the growth of pre-existing breast neoplasms.5 Furthermore, a high body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for both breast cancer recurrence and for insulin resistance.6–8 It is also of interest to establish whether diabetes (or any of the drugs used to treat diabetes) influences the risk of breast cancer in BRCA carriers. The risk of future diabetes may also be increased in women after a diagnosis of breast cancer.9 This risk may be mediated by common risk factors, such as high BMI or insulin resistance, or diabetes may be a late effect of breast cancer treatment. It is important to explore the impact of these factors on the risk of diabetes in women with BRCA mutations. In this cohort of BRCA carriers, we sought to determine whether diabetes increases the risk of breast cancer in BRCA carriers, and to identify risk factors for diabetes in this high-risk population.

It is not clear if early oral contraceptive use increases the risk of breast cancer among young women with a breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) mutation. Given the benefit of oral contraceptives for the prevention of ovarian cancer, estimating age-specific risk ratios for oral contraceptive use and breast cancer is important. We conducted a case-control study of 2,492 matched pairs of women with a deleterious BRCA1 mutation. Breast cancer cases and unaffected controls were matched on year of birth and country of residence. Detailed information about oral contraceptive use was collected from a routinely administered questionnaire. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the association between oral contraceptive and breast cancer, by age at first use and by age at diagnosis. Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, oral contraceptive use was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for women who started the pill prior to age 20 (OR 1.45; 95 % CI 1.20-1.75; P = 0.0001) and possibly between ages 20 and 25 as well (OR 1.19; 95 % CI 0.99-1.42; P = 0.06). The effect was limited to breast cancers diagnosed before age 40 (OR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.14-1.70; P = 0.001); the risk of early-onset breast cancer increased by 11 % with each additional year of pill use when initiated prior to age 20 (OR 1.11; 95 % CI 1.03-1.20; P = 0.008). There was no observed increase for women diagnosed at or after the age of 40 (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.79-1.20; P = 0.81). Oral contraceptive use before age 25 increases the risk of early-onset breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 mutation and the risk increases with duration of use. Caution should be taken when advising women with a BRCA1 mutation to take an oral contraceptive prior to age 25.

Physicians are often approached by young women with a BRCA mutation and a recent history of breast cancer who wish to have a baby. They wish to know if pregnancy impacts upon their future risks of cancer recurrence and survival. To date, there is little information on the survival experience of women who carry a mutation in one of the BRCA genes and who become pregnant. From an international multi-center cohort study of 12,084 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, we identified 128 case subjects who were diagnosed with breast cancer while pregnant or who became pregnant after a diagnosis of breast cancer. These women were age-matched to 269 mutation carriers with breast cancer who did not become pregnant (controls). Subjects were followed from the date of breast cancer diagnosis until the date of last follow-up or death from breast cancer. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate 15-year survival rates. The hazard ratio for survival associated with pregnancy was calculated using a left-truncated Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for other prognostic factors. Among women who were diagnosed with breast cancer when pregnant or who became pregnant thereafter, the 15-year survival rate was 91.5 %, compared to a survival of 88.6 % for women who did not become pregnant (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.76; 95 % CI 0.31–1.91; p = 0.56). Pregnancy concurrent with or after a diagnosis of breast cancer does not appear to adversely affect survival among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.-- CIMBA et al., BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7 × 10(-8), HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4 × 10(-8), HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4 × 10(-8), HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific association. The 17q21.31 locus was also associated with ovarian cancer risk in 8,211 BRCA2 carriers (P = 2×10(-4)). These loci may lead to an improved understanding of the etiology of breast and ovarian tumors in BRCA1 carriers. Based on the joint distribution of the known BRCA1 breast cancer risk-modifying loci, we estimated that the breast cancer lifetime risks for the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk are 28%-50% compared to 81%-100% for the 5% at highest risk. Similarly, based on the known ovarian cancer risk-modifying loci, the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk have an estimated lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 28% or lower, whereas the 5% at highest risk will have a risk of 63% or higher. Such differences in risk may have important implications for risk prediction and clinical management for BRCA1 carriers., The study was supported by NIH grant CA128978, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a U.S. Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Idea award (W81XWH-10-1-0341), grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Komen Foundation for the Cure; Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A11174 and C1287/A10118; the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175). Breast Cancer Family Registry Studies (BCFR): supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health under RFA # CA-06-503 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR) and Principal Investigators, including Cancer Care Ontario (U01 CA69467), Cancer Prevention Institute of California (U01 CA69417), Columbia University (U01 CA69398), Fox Chase Cancer Center (U01 CA69631), Huntsman Cancer Institute (U01 CA69446), and University of Melbourne (U01 CA69638). The Australian BCFR was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. Melissa C. Southey is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow and a Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium Group Leader. Carriers at FCCC were also identified with support from National Institutes of Health grants P01 CA16094 and R01 CA22435. The New York BCFR was also supported by National Institutes of Health grants P30 CA13696 and P30 ES009089. The Utah BCFR was also supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH grant UL1 RR025764, and by Award Number P30 CA042014 from the National Cancer Institute. Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): BFBOCC is partly supported by Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT), Research Council of Lithuania grant LIG-19/2010, and Hereditary Cancer Association (Paveldimo vėžio asociacija)., Latvia (BFBOCC-LV) is partly supported by LSC grant 10.0010.08 and in part by a grant from the ESF Nr.2009/0220/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/09/APIA/VIAA/​016.BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): BMBSA was supported by grants from the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) to Elizabeth J. van Rensburg. Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope (BRICOH): Susan L. Neuhausen was partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship. BRICOH was supported by NIH R01CA74415 and NIH P30 CA033752. Copenhagen Breast Cancer Study (CBCS): The CBCS study was supported by the NEYE Foundation. Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): This work was partially supported by Spanish Association against Cancer (AECC08), RTICC 06/0020/1060, FISPI08/1120, Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA) and SAF2010-20493. City of Hope Cancer Center (COH): The City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genetics Community Research Network is supported by Award Number RC4A153828 (PI: Jeffrey N. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): CONSIT TEAM was funded by grants from Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (Special Project “Hereditary tumors”), Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC, IG 8713), Italian Minitry of Health (Extraordinary National Cancer Program 2006, “Alleanza contro il Cancro” and “Progetto Tumori Femminili), Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (Prin 2008) Centro di Ascolto Donne Operate al Seno (CAOS) association and by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5×1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5×1000’). German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ): The DKFZ study was supported by the DKFZ. The Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON): HEBON is supported by the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the NWO grant 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grant 110005, and the BBMRI grant CP46/NWO., Epidemiological study of BRCA1 & BRCA2 mutation carriers (EMBRACE): EMBRACE is supported by Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Rosalind A. Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Fox Chase Cancer Canter (FCCC): The authors acknowledge support from The University of Kansas Cancer Center and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. Andrew K. Godwin was funded by 5U01CA113916, R01CA140323, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC): The German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 109076, Rita K. Schmutzler) and by the Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): The GEMO study was supported by the Ligue National Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program. Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG): This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Administrative Office and Tissue Bank (CA 27469), Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517), and GOG's Cancer Prevention and Control Committtee (CA 101165). Drs. Mark H. Greene and Phuong L. Mai were supported by funding from the Intramural Research Program, NCI, NIH. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): HCSC was supported by RETICC 06/0020/0021, FIS research grant 09/00859, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)., Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): HRBCP is supported by The Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Dr. Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, Hong Kong. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): HUNBOCS was supported by Hungarian Research Grant KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and the Norwegian EEA Financial Mechanism HU0115/NA/2008-3/ÖP-9. Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO): The ICO study was supported by the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Spanish Health Research Foundation, Ramón Areces Foundation, Carlos III Health Institute, Catalan Health Institute, and Autonomous Government of Catalonia and contract grant numbers: ISCIIIRETIC RD06/0020/1051, PI09/02483, PI10/01422, PI10/00748, 2009SGR290, and 2009SGR283. International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): Supported by the Polish Foundation of Science. Katarzyna Jaworska is a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University. Iceland Landspitali–University Hospital (ILUH): The ILUH group was supported by the Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): INHERIT work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program, the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance grant 019511 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade grant PSR-SIIRI-701. Jacques Simard is Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics., Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): The IOVHBOCS study was supported by Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca and Ministero della Salute (“Progetto Tumori Femminili” and RFPS 2006-5-341353,ACC2/R6.9”). Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): kConFab is supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and by the Queensland Cancer Fund; the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia; and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Amanda B. Spurdle is an NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The Clinical Follow Up Study was funded from 2001–2009 by NHMRC and currently by the National Breast Cancer Foundation and Cancer Australia #628333. Mayo Clinic (MAYO): MAYO is supported by NIH grant CA128978, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a U.S. Department of Defence Ovarian Cancer Idea award (W81XWH-10-1-0341) and grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Komen Foundation for the Cure. McGill University (MCGILL): The McGill Study was supported by Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Export Trade. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): The MSKCC study was supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, Andrew Sabin Family Foundation, and Lymphoma Foundation. Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MODSQUAD was supported by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101). Women's College Research Institute, Toronto (NAROD): NAROD was supported by NIH grant: 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): Drs. Mark H. Greene and Phuong L. Mai were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): NICCC is supported by Clalit Health Services in Israel. Some of its activities are supported by the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N. N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): The NNPIO study has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 11-04-00227, 12-04-00928, and 12-04-01490), the Federal Agency for Science and Innovations, Russia (contract 02.740.11.0780), and through a Royal Society International Joint grant (JP090615). The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSU-CCG): OSUCCG is supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center., South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): SEABASS is supported by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. Sheba Medical Centre (SMC): The SMC study was partially funded through a grant by the Israel Cancer Association and the funding for the Israeli Inherited Breast Cancer Consortium. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): SWE-BRCA collaborators are supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. The University of Chicago Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health (UCHICAGO): UCHICAGO is supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): The UCLA study was supported by the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): The UCSF study was supported by the UCSF Cancer Risk Program and the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Registries (UKFOCR): UKFOCR was supported by a project grant from CRUK to Paul Pharoah. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): The UPENN study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Rooney Family Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, and the Macdonald Family Foundation. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): The VFCTG study was supported by the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, and National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women's Cancer Research Initiative (WCRI): The WCRI at the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN).

The objective is to estimate the risk of breast cancer in women who carry a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, according to parental origin of mutation. We conducted a cohort study of women with a BRCA1 mutation (n = 1523) or BRCA2 mutation (n = 369) who had not been diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. For each woman, the pedigree was reviewed and the origin of the mutation was assigned as probable paternal or maternal. The hazard ratio (HR) for developing breast cancer in the follow-up period was estimated for women with a paternal mutation compared to a maternal mutation. The risk of breast cancer was modestly higher in women with a paternal BRCA1 mutation compared to women with a maternal BRCA1 mutation (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.99-2.16) but the difference was not significant (p = 0.06). The parental mutation origin did not affect the risk in women with a BRCA2 mutation. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women with a paternally inherited BRCA1 mutation compared to a maternally inherited mutation. However, the data are not sufficiently compelling to justify different screening recommendations for the two subgroups.

As genetic testing for predisposition to human diseases has become an increasingly common practice in medicine, the need for clear interpretation of the test results is apparent. However, for many disease genes, including the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, a significant fraction of tests results in the detection of a genetic variant for which disease association is not known. The finding of an "unclassified" variant (UV)/variant of uncertain significance (VUS) complicates genetic test reporting and counseling. As these variants are individually rare, a large collaboration of researchers and clinicians will facilitate studies to assess their association with cancer predisposition. It was with this in mind that the ENIGMA consortium (www.enigmaconsortium.org) was initiated in 2009. The membership is both international and interdisciplinary, and currently includes more than 100 research scientists and clinicians from 19 countries. Within ENIGMA, there are presently six working groups focused on the following topics: analysis, clinical, database, functional, tumor histopathology, and mRNA splicing. ENIGMA provides a mechanism to pool resources, exchange methods and data, and coordinately develop and apply algorithms for classification of variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. It is envisaged that the research and clinical application of models developed by ENIGMA will be relevant to the interpretation of sequence variants in other disease genes. Hum Mutat 00:1-6, 2011. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have elevated risks of breast and ovarian cancers. The risks for cancers at other sites remain unclear. Melanoma has been associated with BRCA2 mutations in some studies, however, few surveys have included non-melanoma skin cancer. We followed 2729 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation for an average of 5.0 years. These women were asked to report new cases of cancer diagnosed in themselves or in their family. The risks of skin cancer were compared for probands with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Of 1779 women with a BRCA1 mutation, 29 developed skin cancer in the follow-up period (1.6%). Of the 950 women with a BRCA2 mutation, 28 developed skin cancer (3.0%) (OR = 1.83 for BRCA2 versus BRCA1; 95% CI 1.08-3.10; P = 0.02). The odds ratio for basal cell carcinoma was higher (OR = 3.8; 95% CI 1.5-9.4; P = 0.002). BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk for skin cancer, compared with BRCA1 carriers, in particular for basal cell carcinoma.

International audience; Germline BRCA1 mutations predispose to breast cancer. To identify genetic modifiers of this risk, we performed a genome-wide association study in 1,193 individuals with BRCA1 mutations who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer under age 40 and 1,190 BRCA1 carriers without breast cancer diagnosis over age 35. We took forward 96 SNPs for replication in another 5,986 BRCA1 carriers (2,974 individuals with breast cancer and 3,012 unaffected individuals). Five SNPs on 19p13 were associated with breast cancer risk (P-trend = 2.3 x 10(-9) to Ptrend = 3.9 x 10(-7)), two of which showed independent associations (rs8170, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.35; rs2363956 HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89). Genotyping these SNPs in 6,800 population-based breast cancer cases and 6,613 controls identified a similar association with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer (rs2363956 per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92, P-trend = 0.0003) and an association with estrogen receptor-positive disease in the opposite direction (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P-trend = 0.016). The five SNPs were also associated with triple-negative breast cancer in a separate study of 2,301 triple-negative cases and 3,949 controls (Ptrend = 1 x 10(-7) to Ptrend = 8 x 10(-5); rs2363956 per-allele OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87, P-trend = 1.1 x 10(-7)).

Background: Hormone therapy (HT) is commonly given to women to alleviate the climacteric symptoms associated with menopause. There is concern that this treatment may increase the risk of breast cancer. The potential association of HT and breast cancer risk is of particular interest to women who carry a mutation in BRCA1 because they face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer and because many of these women take HT after undergoing prophylactic surgical oophorectomy at a young age. Methods: We conducted a matched case-control study of 472 postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 mutation to examine whether or not the use of HT is associated with subsequent risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer case patients and control subjects were matched with respect to age, age at menopause, and type of menopause (surgical or natural). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with conditional logistic regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: In this group of BRCA1 mutation carriers, the adjusted OR for breast cancer associated with ever use of HT compared with never use was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96; P =. 03). In analyses by type of HT, an inverse association with breast cancer risk was observed with use of estrogen only (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.98; P =. 04); the association with use of estrogen plus progesterone was not statistically significant (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.27; P =. 21). Conclusion: Among postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 mutation, HT use was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer; indeed, in this population, it was associated with a decreased risk.

Among women with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2, the risk of breast cancer is high, but it may be modified by exogenous and endogenous factors. There is concern that exposure to carcinogens in cigarette smoke may increase the risk of cancer in mutation carriers. We conducted a matched case-control study of 2,538 cases of breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 (n = 1,920) or a BRCA2 (n = 618) mutation. One non-affected mutation carrier control was selected for each case, matched on mutation, country of birth, and year of birth. Odds ratios were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for oral contraceptive use and parity. Ever-smoking was not associated with an increased breast cancer risk among BRCA1 carriers (OR = 1.09; 95% CI 0.95-1.24) or among BRCA2 carriers (OR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.63-1.05). The result did not differ when cases were restricted to women who completed the questionnaire within two years of diagnosis. A modest, but significant increase in risk was seen among BRCA1 carriers with a past history of smoking (OR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.06-1.50), but not among current smokers (OR = 0.95; 0.81-1.12). There appears to be no increase in the risk of breast cancer associated with current smoking in BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. There is a possibility of an increased risk of breast cancer among BRCA1 carriers associated with past smoking. There may be different effects of carcinogens in BRCA mutation carriers, depending upon the timing of exposure.

Introduction BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk for developing both breast and ovarian cancer. It has been suggested that carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations may also be at increased risk of having recurrent (three or more) miscarriages. Several reproductive factors have been shown to influence the risk of breast cancer in mutation carriers, but the effects of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions on the risk of hereditary breast cancer risk have not been well studied to date. Methods In a matched case-control study, the frequencies of spontaneous abortions were compared among 1,878 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 950 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 657 related non-carrier controls. The rates of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions were compared for carriers with and without breast cancer. Results There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous abortions between carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and non-carriers. The number of spontaneous abortions was not associated with breast cancer risk among BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. However, BRCA2 carriers who had two or more therapeutic abortions faced a 64% decrease in the risk of breast cancer (odds ratio = 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.83; p = 0.02). Conclusion Carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is not a risk factor for spontaneous abortions and spontaneous abortions do not appear to influence the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. However, having two or more therapeutic abortions may be associated with a lowered risk of breast cancer among BRCA2 carriers.

Purpose: Following a diagnosis of breast cancer, BRCA mutation carriers face an increased risk of developing a second (contralateral) cancer in the unaffected breast. It is important to identify predictors of contralateral cancer in order to make informed decisions about bilateral mastectomy. The impact of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (i.e., oophorectomy) on the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer is unclear. Thus, we conducted a prospective study of the relationship between oophorectomy and the risk of contralateral breast cancer in 1781 BRCA1 and 503 BRCA2 mutation carriers with breast cancer. Methods: Women were followed from the date of diagnosis of their first breast cancer until the date of diagnosis of a contralateral breast cancer, bilateral mastectomy, date of death, or date of last follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of contralateral breast cancer associated with oophorectomy. Oophorectomy was included as a time-dependent covariate. We performed a left-censored analysis for those women who reported a primary breast cancer prior to study entry (i.e., from completion of baseline questionnaire). Results: After an average of 9.8years of follow-up, there were 179 (7.8%) contralateral breast cancers diagnosed. Oophorectomy was not associated with the risk of developing a second breast cancer (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.25). The relationship did not vary by BRCA mutation type or by age at diagnosis of the first breast cancer. There was some evidence for a decreased risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with an ER-positive primary breast cancer, but this was based on a small number of events (n = 240). Conclusion: Overall, our findings suggest that oophorectomy has little impact on the risk of contralateral breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The impact of various breast-cancer treatments on patients with a BRCA2 mutation has not been studied. We sought to estimate the impact of bilateral oophorectomy and other treatments on breast cancer-specific survival among patients with a germline BRCA2 mutation.METHODS: We identified 664 women with stage I-III breast cancer and a BRCA2 mutation by combining five different datasets (retrospective and prospective). Subjects were followed for 7.2 years from diagnosis to death from breast cancer. Tumour characteristics and cancer treatments were patient-reported and derived from medical records. Predictors of survival were determined using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for other treatments and for prognostic features.RESULTS: The 10-year breast-cancer survival for ER-positive patients was 78.9% and for ER-negative patients was 82.3% (adjusted HR = 1.23 (95% CI, 0.62-2.45, p = 0.55)). The 10-year breast-cancer survival for women who had a bilateral oophorectomy was 89.1% and for women who did not have an oophorectomy was 59.0% (adjusted HR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72, p = 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio for chemotherapy was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.53: p = 0.56).CONCLUSIONS: For women with breast cancer and a germline BRCA2 mutation, positive ER status does not predict superior survival. Oophorectomy is associated with a reduced risk of death from breast cancer and should be considered in the treatment plan.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Purpose: Breast cancer-predisposing mutations PALB2 c.1027C>T (p.Gln343*) and PALB2 c.2167_2168delAT have each been observed multiple times in breast cancer families of Italian ancestry. More recently, the c2167_2168delAT mutation was identified in unrelated breast cancer cases of various ancestries. For each mutation, we investigated whether the origin was multiple mutational events (a “hot-spot”) or a single event (a founder allele). Methods: We genotyped and reconstructed haplotypes for 36 participants of Italian, Italian-American, Hispanic, and Nigerian ancestries, using seven short tandem repeat (STR) markers that covered 3 Megabases within and flanking PALB2 on chromosome 16. Results: For PALB2 c.1027C>T, a shared haplotype with a minimum size of 150kb was shared by all 19 carriers investigated, all of Italian ancestry. This result suggests that this allele arose as a single event in a shared ancestor. For PALB2 c.2167_2168delAT, all 12 carriers from American-Italian and Italian families shared a 1-Mb haplotype, the 3 Hispanic carriers shared a different haplotype of size 2Mb, and the Nigerian carrier had different alleles at all 7 STR markers. These results suggest that PALB2 c.2167_2168delAT arose multiple times, but that within each population, PALB2 c.2167_2168delAT likely represents a single mutational event. Conclusion: We identified two PALB2 mutations that are founder alleles in Italian families, one of which is, independently, also a founder mutation in American-Hispanic breast cancers.

Introduction More than 70 common alleles are known to be involved in breast cancer (BC) susceptibility, and several exhibit significant heterogeneity in their associations with different BC subtypes. Although there are differences in the association patterns between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and the general population for several loci, no study has comprehensively evaluated the associations of all known BC susceptibility alleles with risk of BC subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Methods We used data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 carriers to analyze the associations between approximately 200,000 genetic variants on the iCOGS array and risk of BC subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and triple-negative- (TN) status; morphologic subtypes; histological grade; and nodal involvement. Results The estimated BC hazard ratios (HRs) for the 74 known BC alleles in BRCA1 carriers exhibited moderate correlations with the corresponding odds ratios from the general population. However, their associations with ER-positive BC in BRCA1 carriers were more consistent with the ER-positive associations in the general population (intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45 to 0.74), and the same was true when considering ER-negative associations in both groups (ICC = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.72). Similarly, there was strong correlation between the ER-positive associations for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (ICC = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.78), whereas ER-positive associations in any one of the groups were generally inconsistent with ER-negative associations in any of the others. After stratifying by ER status in mutation carriers, additional significant associations were observed. Several previously unreported variants exhibited associations at P