Search

GWAS have identified a breast cancer susceptibility locus on 2q35. Here we report the fine mapping of this locus using data from 101,943 subjects from 50 case-control studies. We genotype 276 SNPs using the 'iCOGS' genotyping array and impute genotypes for a further 1,284 using 1000 Genomes Project data. All but two, strongly correlated SNPs (rs4442975 G/T and rs6721996 G/A) are excluded as candidate causal variants at odds against >100:1. The best functional candidate, rs4442975, is associated with oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) disease with an odds ratio (OR) in Europeans of 0.85 (95% confidence interval=0.84-0.87; P=1.7 × 10(-43)) per t-allele. This SNP flanks a transcriptional enhancer that physically interacts with the promoter of IGFBP5 (encoding insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 5) and displays allele-specific gene expression, FOXA1 binding and chromatin looping. Evidence suggests that the g-allele confers increased breast cancer susceptibility through relative downregulation of IGFBP5, a gene with known roles in breast cell biology. ispartof: Nature communications vol:5 pages:4999- ispartof: location:England status: published

Familial primary hyperparathyroidism is the main feature of 2 familial endocrine neoplasia syndromes: multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1) and hyperparathyroidism-jaw tumor syndrome (HPT-JT). The latter is a recently described syndrome that has been associated with ossifying fibroma of the jaw and various types of renal lesions, including benign cysts, Wilms’ tumor, and hamartomas. To further illustrate the natural history of this syndrome, we describe a large, previously unreported Dutch kindred in which 13 affected members presented with either parathyroid adenoma or carcinoma; in 5 affected individuals, cystic kidney disease was found. Additionally, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, renal cortical adenoma, papillary renal cell carcinoma, testicular mixed germcell tumor with major seminoma component, and Hürthle cell thyroid adenoma were also identified. Linkage analysis of the family using MEN1-linked microsatellite markers and mutation analysis excluded the involvement of the MEN1 gene. Using markers from the HPT-JT region in 1q25–31, cosegregation with the disease was found, with a maximum logarithm of odds score of 2.41 obtained for 6 markers using the most conservative calculation. Meiotic telomeric recombination between D1S413 and D1S477 was identified in 3 affected individuals, and when combined with previous reports, delineated the HPT-JT region to 14 centimorgan. Combined comparative genomic hybridization and loss of heterozygosity data revealed complex genetic abnormalities in the tumors, suggesting different possible genetic mechanisms for the disease. In conclusion, we report a family with hyperparathyroidism linked to chromosome 1q, and exhibiting several types of renal and endocrine tumors that have not been previously described.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations confer increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer, but risks have been found to vary across studies and populations. METHODS: We ascertained pedigree data of 582 BRCA1 and 176 BRCA2 families and studied the variation in breast and ovarian cancer risks using a modified segregation analysis model. RESULTS: The average cumulative breast cancer risk by age 70 years was estimated to be 45% (95% CI 36 to 52%) for BRCA1 and 27% (95% CI 14 to 38%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The corresponding cumulative risks for ovarian cancer were 31% (95% CI 17 to 43%) for BRCA1 and 6% (95% CI 2 to 11%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. In BRCA1 families, breast cancer relative risk (RR) increased with more recent birth cohort (p heterogeneity = 0.0006) and stronger family histories of breast cancer (p heterogeneity < 0.001). For BRCA1, our data suggest a significant association between the location of the mutation and the ratio of breast to ovarian cancer (p

Annual MRI and mammography is recommended for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers to reduce breast cancer mortality. Less intensive screening is advised ≥60 years, although effectiveness is unknown. We identified BRCA1/2 mutation carriers without bilateral mastectomy before age 60 to determine for whom screening ≥60 is relevant, in the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic and HEBON: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Furthermore, we compared tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis between different screening strategies in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60. Tumours2 cm, positive lymph nodes, or distant metastases at detection were defined as "unfavourable." Of 548 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60 years in 2012, 395 (72%) did not have bilateral mastectomy before the age of 60. Of these 395, 224 (57%) had a history of breast or other invasive carcinoma. In 136 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, we compared 148 breast cancers (including interval cancers) detected ≥60, of which 84 (57%) were first breast cancers. With biennial mammography 53% (30/57) of carcinomas were detected in unfavourable stage, compared to 21% (12/56) with annual mammography (adjusted odds ratio: 4·07, 95% confidence interval [1.79-9.28], p = 0.001). With biennial screening 40% of breast cancers were interval cancers, compared to 20% with annual screening (p = 0.016). Results remained significant for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and first breast cancers separately. Over 70% of 60-year old BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remain at risk for breast cancer, of which half has prior cancers. When life expectancy is good, continuation of annual breast cancer screening of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60 is worthwhile.

Background: Meaning-focused coping may be at the core of adequate adjustment to life after cancer. Cancer survivors who experience their life as meaningful are better adjusted, have better quality of life and psychological functioning. Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy for Cancer Survivors (MCGP-CS) was designed to help patients to sustain or enhance a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MCGP-CS.Methods/Design: Survivors diagnosed with cancer in the last 5 years and treated with curative intent, are recruited via several hospitals in the Netherlands. After screening, 168 survivors are randomly assigned to one of the three study arms: 1. Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy (MCGP-CS) 2. Supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) 3. Care as usual (CAU). Baseline assessment takes place before randomisation, with follow up assessments post-intervention and at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up. Primary outcome is meaning making (PMP, PTGI, SPWB). Secondary outcome measures address quality of life (EORTC-30), anxiety and depression (HADS), hopelessness (BHS), optimism (LOT-R), adjustment to cancer (MAC), and costs (TIC-P, EQ-5D, PRODISQ).Discussion: Meaning-focused coping is key to adjustment to life after cancer, however, there is a lack of evidence based psychological interventions in this area. Many cancer survivors experience feelings of loneliness and alienation, and have a need for peer support, therefore a group method in particular, can be beneficial for sustaining or enhancing a sense of meaning. If this MCGP-CS is effective for cancer survivors, it can be implemented in the practice of psycho-oncology care.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3571. © 2014 van der Spek et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Genetic testing has its greatest public health value when it identifies individuals who will benefit from specific interventions based upon their risk. This paradigm is the basis for the use of predictive tests, such as BRCA1/BRCA2 testing which has become part of clinical practice for more than a decade. Currently predictive BRCA1/BRCA2 testing is offered to women using low, moderate and high risk based upon family history as cut-off levels. Non-genetic health professionals such as general practitioners (GPs) and breast surgeons (BS) are seen as gatekeepers to manage demand and/or facilitate access to appropriate services for high-risk patients. Data about current practices are lacking. The paper presents data on the current practice of GPs' and BS' cancer risk assessment, referral practices and preferred practice responsibilities for women at risk for familial breast cancer in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK derived by a self-administered questionnaire send to a representative sample of GPs and BS in the four countries. One thousand one hundred ninety-seven GPs and 1,223 BS completed the questionnaire. Both GPs and BS reported that they are consulted by a considerable number of patients presenting with concerns about a family history of cancer. Both commonalities and striking differences could be observed between GPs and BS from the four participating countries. GPs from France and Germany reported significantly higher proportions taking a family history of cancer including the extended family than GPs from the Netherlands and the UK. Most GPs from France, Germany and the Netherlands stated their willingness for providing risk assessment for an unaffected (high-risk) woman with a family history of breast cancer and the vast majority of BS from all four countries reported that they themselves would provide risk assessment for an unaffected (high-risk) woman with a family history of breast cancer. However, a substantial number of both GPs and BS would not have taken an appropriate family history for their patient failing to take into account the paternal side of the family. GPs from Germany reported a significantly lower readiness to refer a patient with a family history of a BRCA1 mutation for specialist genetic counselling when compared to the GPs from the other countries. GPs and BS from France, Germany and the Netherlands significantly less often assigned practice responsibilities to a genetic specialist as compared to the participating GPs and BS from the UK. The outcome of the study confirms the need for capability building in genetics for non-genetic health professionals. Using genetic risk assessment tools without a full understanding could result in missed opportunities for cancer prevention and harm patients. In order to provide best possible services for high-risk patients presenting with cancer concerns, close collaboration with clinical geneticists should become routine part of mainstream medical practice.

Het identificeren van families met een erfelijke predispositie voor kanker is van belang in verband met de mogelijkheid van secundaire preventie . Door regelmatig onderzoek van (gezonde) familieleden kan men tumoren in een vroeg of premaligne stadium ontdekken, wat gunstig is voor de prognose. Naast de mogelijkheid van preventie is herkenning ook van belang omdat de behandeling van erfelijke kanker kan afwijken van die van niet-erfelijke kanker. De huisarts speelt, vanwege de poortwachtersfunctie, een zeer belangrijke rol in het selecteren van patienten die in aanmerking komen voor evaluatie in een klinisch genetisch centrum.

BACKGROUND Nearly 15% of BRCA1 and BRCA2 DNA tests lead to the identification of Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS). VUS are classified in the Netherlands according to the Bell system and it is current practice that class III VUS are communicated to counsellees, but not class II or lower VUS. Our aims were to investigate the utility of in silico characteristics in the classification of VUS and whether initial VUS classifications justify differences in communication protocols during counselling. METHODS We classified 88 missense VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 on the basis of an in silico analysis and compared the classification of a subset of 60 VUS of which additional information including family, genetic and tumour data was available. RESULTS VUS allocated to class III more frequently showed in silico indications of a deleterious effect than class II VUS. Of the 46 VUS assigned to class II by in silico analysis alone, nearly half were eventually recategorised as class I and 10% as class III when additional information was included. CONCLUSIONS As in silico analysis alone is not always sufficient to unambiguously assign VUS to either class II or class III, we would argue that the prospect of obtaining additional information from a family should be given more weight during the decision process preceding the communication of a VUS test result. Research initiatives such as the Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA), which strive to combine diverse sources of information, will be valuable in aiding a definitive classification of a VUS.

Contains fulltext : 118406.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) The bulk of familial breast cancer risk ( approximately 70%) cannot be explained by mutations in the known predisposition genes, primarily BRCA1 and BRCA2. Underlying genetic heterogeneity in these cases is the probable explanation for the failure of all attempts to identify further high-risk alleles. While exome sequencing of non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases is a promising strategy to detect new high-risk genes, rational approaches to the rigorous pre-selection of cases are needed to reduce heterogeneity. We selected six families in which the tumours of multiple cases showed a specific genomic profile on array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Linkage analysis in these families revealed a region on chromosome 4 with a LOD score of 2.49 under homogeneity. We then analysed the germline DNA of two patients from each family using exome sequencing. Initially focusing on the linkage region, no potentially pathogenic variants could be identified in more than one family. Variants outside the linkage region were then analysed, and we detected multiple possibly pathogenic variants in genes that encode DNA integrity maintenance proteins. However, further analysis led to the rejection of all variants due to poor co-segregation or a relatively high allele frequency in a control population. We concluded that using CGH results to focus on a sub-set of families for sequencing analysis did not enable us to identify a common genetic change responsible for the aggregation of breast cancer in these families. Our data also support the emerging view that non-BRCA1/2 hereditary breast cancer families have a very heterogeneous genetic basis.

Journal article TERT-locus SNPs and leukocyte telomere measures are reportedly associated with risks of multiple cancers. Using the Illumina custom genotyping array iCOGs, we analyzed ~480 SNPs at the TERT locus in breast (n = 103,991), ovarian (n = 39,774) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (n = 11,705) cancer cases and controls. Leukocyte telomere measurements were also available for 53,724 participants. Most associations cluster into three independent peaks. The minor allele at the peak 1 SNP rs2736108 associates with longer telomeres (P = 5.8 × 10!-7), lower risks for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (P = 1.0 × 10!-8) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.1 × 10!-5) breast cancers and altered promoter assay signal. The minor allele at the peak 2 SNP rs7705526 associates with longer telomeres (P = 2.3 × 10!-14), higher risk of low-malignant-potential ovarian cancer (P = 1.3 × 10!-15) and greater promoter activity. The minor alleles at the peak 3 SNPs rs10069690 and rs2242652 increase ER-negative (P = 1.2 × 10!-12) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.6 × 10!-14) breast and invasive ovarian (P = 1.3 × 10!-11) cancer risks but not via altered telomere length. The cancer risk alleles of rs2242652 and rs10069690, respectively, increase silencing and generate a truncated TERT splice variant. European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (agreement 223175-HEALTH-F2-2009-223175); Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118 and C1287/A12014) peer-reviewed

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of breast cancer associated with diagnostic radiation in carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). SETTING: Three nationwide studies (GENEPSO, EMBRACE, HEBON) in France, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, PARTICIPANTS: 1993 female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations recruited in 2006-09. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Risk of breast cancer estimated with a weighted Cox proportional hazards model with a time dependent individually estimated cumulative breast dose, based on nominal estimates of organ dose and frequency of self reported diagnostic procedures. To correct for potential survival bias, the analysis excluded carriers who were diagnosed more than five years before completion of the study questionnaire. RESULTS: In carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations any exposure to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 3.00), with a dose-response pattern. The risks by quarter of estimated cumulative dose /= 0.0020-0.0065 Gy, >/= 0.0066-0.0173 Gy, and >/= 0.0174 Gy were 1.63 (0.96 to 2.77), 1.78 (0.88 to 3.58), 1.75 (0.72 to 4.25), and 3.84 (1.67 to 8.79), respectively. Analyses on the different types of diagnostic procedures showed a pattern of increasing risk with increasing number of radiographs before age 20 and before age 30 compared with no exposure. A history of mammography before age 30 was also associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio 1.43, 0.85 to 2.40). Sensitivity analysis showed that this finding was not caused by confounding by indication of family history. CONCLUSION: In this large European study among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, exposure to diagnostic radiation before age 30 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer at dose levels considerably lower than those at which increases have been found in other cohorts exposed to radiation. The results of this study support the use of non-ionising radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Women from high-risk families consider preventive measures for breast cancer including screening. Guidelines on screening differ considerably regarding starting age. We investigated whether age at diagnosis in affected relatives is predictive for age at diagnosis. We analyzed the age of breast cancer detection of 1,304 first- and second-degree relatives of 314 BRCA1, 164 BRCA2 and 244 high-risk participants of the Dutch MRI-SCreening study. The within- and between-family variance in the relative's age at diagnosis was analyzed with a random effect linear regression model. We compared the starting age of screening based on risk-group (25 years for BRCA1, 30 years for BRCA2 and 35 years for familial risk), on family history, and on the model, which combines both. The findings were validated in 63 families from the UK-MARIBS study. Mean age at diagnosis in the relatives varied between families; 95% range of mean family ages was 35-55 in BRCA1-, 41-57 in BRCA2- and 44-60 in high-risk families. In all, 14% of the variance in age at diagnosis, in BRCA1 even 23%, was explained by family history, 7% by risk group. Determining start of screening based on the model and on risk-group gave similar results in terms of cancers missed and years of screening. The approach based on familial history only, missed more cancers and required more screening years in both the Dutch and the United Kingdom data sets. Age at breast cancer diagnosis is partly dependent on family history which may assist planning starting age for preventive measures.

Item does not contain fulltext A family history of prostate cancer (PCa) is an established risk factor for PCa. In case of a positive family history, the balance between positive and adverse effects of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing might be different from the general population, for which the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed a beneficial effect on mortality. This, however, went at the cost of considerable overtreatment. This study assessed Dutch physicians' knowledge of heredity and PCa and their 'post-ERSPC' attitude towards PCa testing, including consideration of family history. In January 2010, all Dutch urologists and clinical geneticists (CGs) and 300 general practitioners (GPs) were invited by email to complete an anonymous online survey, which contained questions about hereditary PCa and their attitudes towards PCa case-finding and screening. 109 urologists (31%), 69 GPs (23%) and 46 CGs (31%) completed the survey. CGs had the most accurate knowledge of hereditary PCa. All but 1 CG mentioned at least one inherited trait with PCa, compared to only 25% of urologists and 9% of GPs. CGs hardly ever counseled men about PCa testing. Most urologists and GPs discuss possible risks and benefits before testing for PCa with PSA. Remarkably, 35-40% of them do not take family history into consideration. Knowledge of urologists and GPs about heredity and PCa is suboptimal. Hence, PCa counseling might not be optimal for men with a positive family history. Multidisciplinary guidelines on this topic should be developed to optimize personalized counseling. 01 juni 2012

Objective: Previous studies suggest that learning a DNA-test-result has no direct impact on the medical-decisions and psychological well-being of counselees. Their perception, especially their recollections and interpretations of their cancer-risks and heredity, predict and/or mediate this impact. These studies were criticized for their small range of predictors, mediators, outcomes and contextual factors. We studied the short-term impact of DNA-testing with an extended model.Methods: Three months after disclosure of BRCA1/2-test-results, we sent counselees a questionnaire about their perception, medical and psychological outcomes, and medical, familial and psychological contexts. 248 affected women participated: 30 had received pathogenic-mutations, 16 unclassified-variants and 202 uninformative-results.Results: The actually communicated genetic-information and the contextual variables predicted the counselees' perception, but did not directly predict any outcomes. The counselees' perception predicted and/or completely mediated the counselees' medical intentions and behavior, physical and psychological life-changes, stigma, mastery, negativity and cancer-worries. Short-term distress was related to the perception not only of their own risks, but also of their relatives' risks and heredity-likelihood. Effect sizes were medium to large.Conclusions and implications: The outcomes of DNA-testing were better predicted by the counselees' perception than by the actually given genetic-information. We recommend genetic-counselors to have tailored, interactive dialogues about the counselees' perception. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

The MUTYH gene is involved in base excision repair. MUTYH mutations predispose to recessively inherited colorectal polyposis and cancer. Here, we evaluate an association with breast cancer (BC), following up our previous finding of an elevated BC frequency among Dutch bi-allelic MUTYH mutation carriers. A case–control study was performed comparing 1,469 incident BC patients (ORIGO cohort), 471 individuals displaying features suggesting a genetic predisposition for BC, but without a detectable BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAx cohort), and 1,666 controls. First, for 303 consecutive patients diagnosed before age 55 years and/or with multiple primary breast tumors, the MUTYH coding region and flanking introns were sequenced. The remaining subjects were genotyped for five coding variants, p.Tyr179Cys, p.Arg309Cys, p.Gly396Asp, p.Pro405Leu, and p.Ser515Phe, and four tagging SNPs, c.37-2487G>T, p.Val22Met, c.504+35G>A, and p.Gln338His. No bi-allelic pathogenic MUTYH mutations were identified. The pathogenic variant p.Gly396Asp and the variant of uncertain significance p.Arg309Cys occurred twice as frequently in BRCAx subjects as compared to incident BC patients and controls (p = 0.13 and p = 0.15, respectively). The likely benign variant p.Val22Met occurred less frequently in patients from the incident BC (p = 0.03) and BRCAx groups (p = 0.11), respectively, as compared to the controls. Minor allele genotypes of several MUTYH variants showed trends towards association with lobular BC histology. This extensive case–control study could not confirm previously reported associations of MUTYH variants with BC, although it was too small to exclude subtle effects on BC susceptibility. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-012-1965-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contains fulltext : 96071.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Breast cancers demonstrate substantial biological, clinical and etiological heterogeneity. We investigated breast cancer risk associations of eight susceptibility loci identified in GWAS and two putative susceptibility loci in candidate genes in relation to specific breast tumor subtypes. Subtypes were defined by five markers (ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6, EGFR) and other pathological and clinical features. Analyses included up to 30 040 invasive breast cancer cases and 53 692 controls from 31 studies within the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We confirmed previous reports of stronger associations with ER+ than ER- tumors for six of the eight loci identified in GWAS: rs2981582 (10q26) (P-heterogeneity = 6.1 x 10(-18)), rs3803662 (16q12) (P = 3.7 x 10(-5)), rs13281615 (8q24) (P = 0.002), rs13387042 (2q35) (P = 0.006), rs4973768 (3p24) (P = 0.003) and rs6504950 (17q23) (P = 0.002). The two candidate loci, CASP8 (rs1045485, rs17468277) and TGFB1 (rs1982073), were most strongly related with the risk of PR negative tumors (P = 5.1 x 10(-6) and P = 4.1 x 10(-4), respectively), as previously suggested. Four of the eight loci identified in GWAS were associated with triple negative tumors (P

Several studies have shown that counselees do not experience psychopathological levels of distress after DNA test result disclosure. However, it has not systematically been studied whether the absence of psychopathology also means that counselees do not want to receive help. Their self-reported request for help may be related not only with psychopathology/distress but also with other psychological needs (e.g., surgery decisions), genetics-specific needs (e.g., feeling vulnerable/stigmatized), and existential concerns (e.g., meaning in life).Questionnaires were filled in by Dutch cancer patients, before and after disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202), or unclassified variants (n = 16). Newly developed questions measured request for help, psychopathology was estimated with factor analyses on distress/psychopathology instruments, and several validated questionnaires measured other needs/concerns.One-third of all counselees who reported a request for psychological help had actually received help. The level of psychopathology correlated between 0.34 and 0.44 with this self-reported need-for-help. Other needs, genetics-specific distress, and existential concerns correlated strongly/moderately with the counselees' self-reported need-for-help. Examples of other needs were intention to undergo surgery, inaccuracy of their interpretation, the impact of cancer, and family communication difficulties. Genetics-specific distress was for instance feeling vulnerable to develop cancer, stigma, and lack of mastery. Existential concerns were, among others, lack of purpose in life, low self-acceptance, and an unfulfilled wish for certainty.The request for help is related to multiple factors. Referral to psychosocial professionals may be improved by not only discussing psychopathology during genetic-counseling sessions but also by other needs and existential concerns. Questions about other needs and existential issues may be added to psychological screening instruments.

Background: Unclassified variant and uninformative BRCA1/2 results are not only relevant for probands to whom results are disclosed but also for untested relatives. Previous studies have seldomly included relatives and have not explained how their lives were influenced by these results. We explored the family communication timeline of genetic counseling: (1) genetic counselors communicate the relatives' cancer risk, (2) probands perceive this risk and (3) communicate this to relatives; (4) relatives perceive this information, and (5) experience an impact on their lives. Methods: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with an unclassified variant and 5 with an uninformative result, and in, respectively, 27 and 12 of their untested female relatives from moderate cancer risk families. In questionnaires, probands described their perception of the DNA-test result (i.e., recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and heredity likelihood). Relatives described the communication process, their perception, and impact (i.e., medical decisions, distress, quality of life, and life changes). Bootstrap analysis was used to analyze mediation effects. Results: The relatives' own perception strongly predicted breast self-examination, breast/ovarian surveillance or surgery, levels of distress and quality of life, and amount of reported life changes. The extent to which the proband had communicated the DNA-test result in an understandable, direct, reassuring way, predicted the relatives' perception. The actual communicated relatives' cancer risks or the proband's perception did not predict relatives' perception and impact measures. Family characteristics influenced the communication process but not the relatives' perception and outcomes. Discussion: Relatives seem to make poorly informed decisions on the basis of their own perception, which was unrelated to the information that probands had communicated on the basis of the actual communicated result. Therefore, genetic counselors may guide probands in the communication process and may directly inform relatives, if possible. Genet Med 2011:13(4):333-341.

Objective of this paper is to study how DNA-test result information was communicated and perceived within families. A retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with a BRCA1/2 unclassified variant, 7 with a pathogenic mutation, 5 with an uninformative result, and in 44, 14, and 12 of their 1st and 2nd degree relatives respectively. We examined differences and correlations between: (a) information actually communicated (b) probands' perception, (c) relatives' perception. The perception consisted of recollections and interpretations of both their own and their relatives' cancer-risks, and heredity-likelihood (i.e. likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family). Differences and low correlations suggested few similarities between the actually communicated information, the probands' and the relatives' perception. More specifically, probands recalled the communicated information differently compared with the actually communicated information (R = .40), and reinterpreted this information differently (R = .30). The relatives' perception was best correlated with the proband's interpretation (R = .08), but this perception differed significantly from their proband's perception. Finally, relatives reinterpreted the information they received from their proband differently (R = .25), and this interpretation was only slightly related with the original message communicated by the genetic-counsellor (R = .15). Unclassified-variants were most frequently misinterpreted by probands and relatives, and had the largest differences between probands' and relatives' perceptions. Like in a children's whisper-game, many errors occur in the transmission of DNA-test result information in families. More attention is required for how probands disseminate information to relatives. Genetic-counsellors may help by supporting the probands in communicating to relatives, e.g. by providing clear summary letters for relatives.

Many cancer-patients undergo DNA testing in the BRCA1/2 genes to receive information about the likelihood that cancer is heritable. Previous nonsystematic studies suggested that DNA testing often does not fulfill the counselees' needs for certainty. We explored the balance between the counselees' need for certainty and perceived certainty (NfC-PC, i.e., level of fulfillment of NfC) regarding the specific domains of DNA test result, heredity and cancer. We also examined relationships of NfC-PC with coping styles and distress.Before disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (T1), questionnaires were filled in by 467 cancer-patients. Another questionnaire (T2) was filled in after disclosure of pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202) or unclassified-variants (n = 16).Before and after DNA test result disclosure, overall 58-94% of all counselees experienced unfulfilled NfC regarding the DNA test result, heredity and cancer. Compared with T1, the communication of pathogenic mutations (T2) caused more fulfillment of the NfC about the DNA test result, but less about cancer and heredity (p.01). Compared with T1, unclassified variants (T2) did not significantly change the extent of fulfillment of all counselees' needs for certainty (NfCPC). Compared with T1, uninformative results (T2) caused more fulfillments of all needs than before disclosure (p0.01). Counselees differentiated NfC and PC between the domains of DNA-test result, heredity and cancer (p0.01). The unfulfilled needs for certainty (NfC-PC) were uncorrelated with cognitive understanding of the DNA test result.The counselees' NfC needs more attention in research and practice, for example, when the potential uncertainties of testing are discussed. The counselees' NfC may be assessed and used in tailored, mutual communication of DNA test results.

Contains fulltext : 89059.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a rare autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome. Most families fulfilling the classical diagnostic criteria harbour TP53 germline mutations. However, TP53 germline mutations may also occur in less obvious phenotypes. As a result, different criteria are in use to decide which patients qualify for TP53 mutation analysis, including the LFS, Li-Fraumeni-like (LFL) and Chompret criteria. We investigated which criteria for TP53 mutation analysis resulted in the highest mutation detection rate and sensitivity in Dutch families. We describe the tumour spectrum in TP53-positive families and calculated tumour type specific relative risks. METHOD A total of 180 Dutch families referred for TP53 mutation analysis were evaluated. Tumour phenotypes were verified by pathology reports or clinical records. RESULTS A TP53 germline mutation was identified in 24 families. When the Chompret criteria were used 22/24 mutations were detected (sensitivity 92%, mutation detection rate 21%). In LFS and LFL families 18/24 mutations were found (sensitivity 75%). The two mutations detected outside the 'Chompret group' were found in a child with rhabdomyosarcoma and a young woman with breast cancer. In the mutation carriers, in addition to the classical LFS tumour types, colon and pancreatic cancer were also found significantly more often than in the general population. CONCLUSION We suggest TP53 mutation testing for all families fulfilling the Chompret criteria. In addition, TP53 mutation testing can be considered in the event of childhood sarcoma and breast cancer before 30 years. In addition to the risk for established LFS tumour types, TP53-positive individuals may also have an elevated risk for pancreatic and colon cancer. 01 juni 2010

Background Assessment of the clinical significance of unclassified variants (UVs) identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is very important for genetic counselling. The analysis of co-segregation of the variant with the disease in families is a powerful tool for the classification of these variants. Statistical methods have been described in literature but these methods are not always easy to apply in a diagnostic setting. Methods We have developed an easy to use method which calculates the likelihood ratio (LR) of an UV being deleterious, with penetrance as a function of age of onset, thereby avoiding the use of liability classes. The application of this algorithm is publicly available http://www.msbi.nl/cosegregation. It can easily be used in a diagnostic setting since it requires only information on gender, genotype, present age and/or age of onset for breast and/or ovarian cancer. Results We have used the algorithm to calculate the likelihood ratio in favour of causality for 3 UVs in BRCA1 (p.M18T, p.S1655F and p.R1699Q) and 5 in BRCA2 (p.E462G p.Y2660D, p.R2784Q, p.R3052W and p.R3052Q). Likelihood ratios varied from 0.097 (BRCA2, p.E462G) to 230.69 (BRCA2, p.Y2660D). Typing distantly related individuals with extreme phenotypes (i.e. very early onset cancer or old healthy individuals) are most informative and give the strongest likelihood ratios for or against causality. Conclusion Although co-segregation analysis on itself is in most cases insufficient to prove pathogenicity of an UV, this method simplifies the use of co-segregation as one of the key features in a multifactorial approach considerably.

Purpose: Effective communication of DNA-test results requires a sound terminology. However, the variety of terms in literature for DNA-test results other than pathogenic, may create inconsistencies between professionals, and misunderstanding in patients. Therefore, we conducted a theoretical and empirical analysis of the terms most frequently used in articles between 2002 and 2007 for BRCA 1/2-test results other than pathogenic.(1) Design: We analyzed the content validity of the no-pathogenic DNA-test result-terms by comparing the literal and intended meaning of the terms and by examining their clarity and the inclusion of all relevant information. We analyzed the reliability of the terms by measuring the strength of association between terms and their meanings and the consistency among different authors over time. Results: Two hundred twenty-seven articles with 361 no-pathogenic DNA-test result-terms were found. Only two terms seemed to have acceptable validity: variant of uncertain clinical significance and no-pathogenic-DNA-test-result. Only variant of uncertain clinical significance and true negative were found to be used reliably in the literature. Conclusions: Current DNA nomenclature lacks validity and reliability. Transparent DNA-test result terminology should be developed covering both laboratory findings and clinical meaning. Genet Med 2009:11(10): 742-749.

Familial breast cancer represents up to 5% of all breast cancer cases. Recently, our group has performed a new SNP-based linkage study in 19 non-BRCA1/2 families. We found that a single family was linked to regions in two different chromosomes (11q13 and 14q21), and observed a non-parametric LOD score of 11.5 in both regions. In the present study, we ruled out any possible translocation between the chromosomes. We also used both a panel of STRs and an indirect approach based on HapMap data to narrow down these regions from 28 to 7 Mb in chromosome 11 and from 14.5 to 8.5 Mb in chromosome 14. We performed a mutational screening on candidate genes in 11q13 (NUMA1, FGF3, CCND1, RAD9A, RNF121, FADD and hsa-mir-192), and on FOXA1 in 14q21. Although we have not found any deleterious mutations in the coding region of these genes, data from STR markers confirm 11q13 as a candidate region to contain a breast cancer susceptibility gene.

Background An increased risk of breast cancer for relatives of breast cancer patients has been demonstrated in many studies, and having a relative diagnosed with breast cancer at an early age is an indication for breast cancer screening. This indication has been derived from estimates based on data from cancer-prone families or from BRCA1/2 mutation families, and might be biased because BRCA1/2 mutations explain only a small proportion of the familial clustering of breast cancer. The aim of the current study was to determine the predictive value of a family history of cancer with regard to early onset of female breast cancer in a population based setting. Methods An unselected sample of 1,987 women with and without breast cancer was studied with regard to the age of diagnosis of breast cancer. Results The risk of early-onset breast cancer was increased when there were: (1) at least 2 cases of female breast cancer in first-degree relatives (yes/no; HR at age 30: 3.09; 95% CI: 128-7.44), (2) at least 2 cases of female breast cancer in first or second-degree relatives under the age of 50 (yes/no; HR at age 30: 3.36; 95% CI: 1.12–10.08), (3) at least 1 case of female breast cancer under the age of 40 in a first- or second-degree relative (yes/no; HR at age 30: 2.06; 95% CI: 0.83–5.12) and (4) any case of bilateral breast cancer (yes/no; HR at age 30: 3.47; 95%: 1.33–9.05). The positive predictive value of having 2 or more of these characteristics was 13% for breast cancer before the age of 70, 11% for breast cancer before the age of 50, and 1% for breast cancer before the age of 30. Conclusion Applying family history related criteria in an unselected population could result in the screening of many women who will not develop breast cancer at an early age.

To show differences and similarities between risk estimation models for breast cancer in healthy women from BRCA1/2-negative or untested families. After a systematic literature search seven models were selected: Gail-2, Claus Model, Claus Tables, BOADICEA, Jonker Model, Claus-Extended Formula, and Tyrer-Cuzick. Life-time risks (LTRs) for developing breast cancer were estimated for two healthy counsellees, aged 40, with a variety in family histories and personal risk factors. Comparisons were made with guideline thresholds for individual screening. Without a clinically significant family history LTRs varied from 6.7% (Gail-2 Model) to 12.8% (Tyrer-Cuzick Model). Adding more information on personal risk factors increased the LTRs and yearly mammography will be advised in most situations. Older models (i.e. Gail-2 and Claus) are likely to underestimate the LTR for developing breast cancer as their baseline risk for women is too low. When models include personal risk factors, surveillance thresholds have to be reformulated. For current clinical practice, the Tyrer-Cuzick Model and the BOADICEA Model seem good choices.

Objective: Unclassified variants (UVs, variants of uncertain clinical significance) are found in 13% of all BRCA1/2 mutation analyses. Little is known about the counsellees' recall and interpretation of a UV, and its psychosocial/medical impact. Method: Retrospective semi-structured interviews with open questions and five-point Likert scales were carried out in 24 counsellees who received a UV result 3 years before (sd=1.9). Results: Sixty-seven percent (16/24) recalled the UV result as a non-informative DNA result; 29% recalled a pathogenic result. However, 79% of all counsellees interpreted the UV result as a genetic predisposition for cancer. Variations in recall and interpretation were unexplained by demographics, cancer history of themselves and relatives, and communication aspects of UV disclosure. Sixty-seven percent perceived genetic counselling as completed, whereas 71% expected to receive new DNA information. Although most counsellees reported that UV disclosure had changed their lives in general little, one in three counsellees reported large changes in specific life domains, especially in surveillance behavior and medical decisions. Ten out of 19 participants who interpreted the UV as pathogenic had undergone preventive surgery against none of the 5 counsellees who interpreted the UV as non-informative. Conclusion: Counsellors and researchers need to address discrepancies between the counsellees' factual recall and their subjective interpretation of non-informative BRCA1/2-test results. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background Understanding risks is considered to be crucial for informed decision-making. Inaccurate risk perception is a common finding in women with a family history of breast cancer attending genetic counseling. As yet, it is unclear how risks should best be communicated in clinical practice. This study protocol describes the design and methods of the BRISC (Breast cancer RISk Communication) study evaluating the effect of different formats of risk communication on the counsellee's risk perception, psychological well-being and decision-making regarding preventive options for breast cancer. Methods and design The BRISC study is designed as a pre-post-test controlled group intervention trial with repeated measurements using questionnaires. The intervention-an additional risk consultation-consists of one of 5 conditions that differ in the way counsellee's breast cancer risk is communicated: 1) lifetime risk in numerical format (natural frequencies, i.e. X out of 100), 2) lifetime risk in both numerical format and graphical format (population figures), 3) lifetime risk and age-related risk in numerical format, 4) lifetime risk and age-related risk in both numerical format and graphical format, and 5) lifetime risk in percentages. Condition 6 is the control condition in which no intervention is given (usual care). Participants are unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer attending one of three participating clinical genetic centres in the Netherlands. Discussion The BRISC study allows for an evaluation of the effects of different formats of communicating breast cancer risks to counsellees. The results can be used to optimize risk communication in order to improve informed decision-making among women with a family history of breast cancer. They may also be useful for risk communication in other health-related services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14566836.

Breast cancer accounts for over 20% of all female cancers. A positive family history remains one of the most important risk factors for the disease, with first-degree relatives of patients having a twofold elevated risk. Known breast cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain only 20-25% of this risk, suggesting the existence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. Here, we report the results of a genome-wide linkage scan in 55 high-risk Dutch breast cancer families with no mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Twenty-two of these families were also part of a previous linkage study by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. In addition, we performed CGH analyses in 61 tumors of these families and 31 sporadic tumors. Three regions were identified with parametric HLOD scores > 1, and three with nonparametric HLOD scores > 1.5. Upon further marker genotyping for the candidate loci, and the addition of another 30 families to the analysis, only the locus on chromosome 9 (9q21-22, marker D9S167) remained significant, with a nonparametric multipoint LOD score of 3.96 (parametric HLOD 0.56, alpha = 0.18). With CGH analyses we observed preferential copy number loss at BAC RP11-276H19, containing D9S167 in familial tumors as compared to sporadic tumors (P < 0.001). Five candidate genes were selected from the region around D9S167 and their coding regions subjected to direct sequence analysis in 16 probands. No clear pathogenic mutations were found in any of these genes. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Introduction Seven SNPs in five genomic loci were recently found to confer a mildly increased risk of breast cancer. Methods We have investigated the correlations between disease characteristics and the patient genotypes of these SNPs in an unselected prospective cohort of 1,267 consecutive patients with primary breast cancer. Results Heterozygote carriers and minor allele homozygote carriers for SNP rs889312 in the MAP3K1 gene were less likely to be lymph node positive at breast cancer diagnosis (P = 0.044) relative to major allele homozygote carriers. Heterozygote carriers and minor allele homozygote carriers for SNP rs3803662 near the TNCR9 gene were more likely to be diagnosed before the age of 60 years (P = 0.025) relative to major allele homozygote carriers. We also noted a correlation between the number of minor alleles of rs2981582 in FGFR2 and the average number of first-degree and second-degree relatives with breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer (P = 0.05). All other disease characteristics, including tumour size and grade, and oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, were not significantly associated with any of these variants. Conclusion Some recently discovered genomic variants associated with a mildly increased risk of breast cancer are also associated with breast cancer characteristics or family history of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. These findings provide interesting new clues for further research on these low-risk susceptibility alleles.

Purpose: To describe patient, tumor, and family histories of cancer in a hospital-based cohort of patients with ovarian cancer and to identify the predictive value of these characteristics for (non)carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Methods: Women diagnosed with invasive ovarian cancer between 1999 and 2003 in the west region of The Netherlands and unselected for age at diagnosis or cancer family history were included. Information was gathered on patient and tumor characteristics; p53; HER-2/neu, and KI-67 protein-expression; BRCA1/2 mutations; and family histories of cancer. Prediction tests were constructed using multivariate analyses. Results: Our study included 85 women (mean age at diagnosis, 57.6 years; standard deviation, 11.0 years). Six of these women had been previously or concurrently diagnosed with another tumor. Of the ovarian cancers, 41 (48.2%) were in an early stage (FIGO I or II). Five pathogenic mutations (6.1%) and six unclassified variants (7.3%) were identified in BRCA1/2; when the total sensitivity of the mutation scanning was taken into account, it was estimated to reflect seven pathogenic mutations (8.5%) and eight unclassified variants (9.8%). Sixty-nine women (81.2%) had at least one relative with cancer. A personal history of breast cancer and a family history of breast, ovarian, or uterine/endometrioid cancer were found to predict the presence of pathogenic mutations. Conclusion: As the combination of a personal history of breast cancer and a family history of breast, ovarian, or uterine/endometrioid cancer had good predictive value for the presence of a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation, the presented prediction test is a useful instrument to identify those women eligible for DNA testing.

This prospective study explored the contribution of illness representations and coping to cancer-related distress in unaffected individuals undergoing predictive genetic testing for an identified mutation in BRCA1/2 (BReast CAncer) or an HNPCC (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer)-related gene, based on the common sense model of self-regulation.Coping with hereditary cancer (UCL), illness representations (IPQ-R) and risk perception were assessed in 235 unaffected applicants for genetic testing before test result disclosure. Hereditary cancer distress (IES) and cancer worry (CWS) were assessed before, 2 weeks after and 6 months after result disclosure.Timeline (r = 0.30), consequences (r = 0.25), illness coherence (r = 0.21) and risk perception (r = 0.20) were significantly correlated to passive coping. Passive coping predicted hereditary cancer distress and cancer worry from pre-test (beta= 0.46 and 0.42, respectively) up to 6 months after result disclosure (beta= 0.32 and 0.19, respectively). Illness coherence predicted hereditary cancer distress up to 6 months after result disclosure (beta= 0.24), too.The self-regulatory model may be useful to predict the cognitive and emotional reactions to genetic cancer susceptibility testing. Identifying unhelpful representations and cognitive restructuring may be appropriate interventions to help distressed individuals undergoing genetic susceptibility testing for a BRCA1/2 or a HNPCC-related mutation. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This study explored predictors for hereditary cancer distress six months after genetic susceptibility testing for a known familial BRCA1/2 or HNPCC related mutation, in order to gain insight into aspects relevant for the identification of individuals needing additional psychosocial support. Coping, illness representations, experiences with cancer in relatives and family system characteristics were assessed in 271 applicants for genetic testing before result disclosure. Hereditary cancer distress was assessed prospectively up to six months after disclosure. Regression analysis revealed that the pretest level of distress, complicated grief, the number of affected first-degree relatives and strong emotional illness representations were factors that best explained hereditary cancer distress. Other significant predictors were illness coherence, passive coping, distraction seeking, being aged

This study assessed the impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility on family relationships and determinants of adverse consequences for family relationships. Applicants for genetic testing of a known familial pathogenic mutation in BRCA1/2 or a HNPCC related gene (N = 271) rated the prevalence and nature of changes in family relationships, familial difficulties and conflicts due to genetic testing 6 months after receiving the test result. The level of family functioning, differentiation from parents, support and familial communication style regarding hereditary cancer were assessed before receiving the test result. Genetic testing affected some family relationships in a positive way (37%), i.e. by feeling closer, improved communication and support, more appreciation of the relative and relief of negative test result. A minority reported unwanted changes in relationships (19%), problematic situations (13%) or conflicts (4%). Adverse effects comprised feelings of guilt towards children and carrier siblings, imposed secrecy and communication problems. Predictors of adverse consequences on family relationships were reluctance to communicate about hereditary cancer with relatives and disengaged-rigid or enmeshed-chaotic family functioning. Open communication between relatives should be stimulated because a lack of open communication may be an important determinant of familial adverse effects. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Objective: To study differences between individuals opting for genetic cancer susceptibility testing of a known familial BRCA1/2 and HNPCC related germline mutation.Methods: Coping, illness perceptions, experiences with cancer in relatives and family system characteristics were assessed in 271 applicants for genetic testing before test result disclosure. Hereditary cancer distress, worry and cancer risk perception were assessed before, 1 week after, and 6 months after disclosure.Results: Individuals from BRCA1/2 and HNPCC mutation families did not differ with regard to the number of experiences with cancer in relatives, grief symptoms, the course of cancer distress, worry and risk perception through time and most illness perceptions, coping responses and family characteristics. Individuals from BRCA1/2 families perceived hereditary cancer as more serious. They reported more frequently a passive coping style, cancer worry and a less open communication with their partner and children.Conclusion: Besides subtle differences, psychological mechanisms maybe mainly identical in individuals opting for BRCA1/2 and HNPCC susceptibility testing.Practice implications: Based on our findings, using a similar counseling approach for individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing is justified. In this approach, attention should be directed more to individual aspects than to the type of disorder. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

25 Background: Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) confers the greatest risk-reduction in women at high-risk of developing breast cancer. Uptake of BRRM is influenced by the attitudes of these women as well as the breast surgeons offering these procedures. We surveyed surgeon members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons to assess their attitudes and knowledge. Methods: An International Cancer Risk Communication Study (InCRisC) questionnaire, previously used to assess attitudes of European physicians and surgeons was sent to 2648 members. Personal and occupational characteristics were recorded and knowledge of cancer genetics and attitudes to BRRM were assessed using clinical vignettes. Results: 439 breast surgeons responded. 98% of surgeons actively took a family history of the father. Almost 100% of surgeons reported a positive attitude towards BRRM. Female surgeons and those treating greater than 100 breast cancers a year were predictors of knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a positive attitude towards BRRM. Conclusions: Multiple factors contribute to surgeons' attitudes towards BRRM. Gender of surgeon and workload contribute to theses observed variations.

Intro: Male BC is a rare disease (90% but adjuvant ET given in only 77% pts; c) Male BC is usually ER+, PR+ & AR+ and of Luminal A-like subtype (5% HER2pos & 1% TNBC); d) Significant improvement in OS over time; e) ER and PR (Allred) are prognostic (high expression/better prognosis), less for AR, not for Ki67 nor IHC surrogates; f) In-depth characterization of samples is ongoing. Funding: BCRF, EBCC Council, Pink Ribbon NL, BRO. Citation Format: Fatima Cardoso, John Bartlett, Leen Slaets, Carolien van Deurzen, Elise van Leewen-Stok, Peggy Porter, Barbro Linderholm, Ingrid Hedenfalk, Carolien Schroder, John Martens, Jane Bayani, Christi van Asperen, Melissa Murray, Clifford Hudis, Lavinia Middleton, Joanna Vermeij, Stephanie Peeters, Judith Fraser, Monica Nowaczyk, Isabel Rubio, Stefan Aebi, Catherine Kelly, Kathryn Ruddy, Eric Winer, Cecilia Nilsson, Lissandra Dal Lago, Larissa Korde, Kim Benstead, Danielle Van Den Weyngaert, Oliver Bogler, Theodora Goulioti, Nicolas Dif, Carlo Messina, Konstantinos Tryfonidis, Jan Bogaerts, Sharon Giordano. Characterization of male breast cancer: First results of the EORTC10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male BC Program [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-05.

Mutations in known breast cancer susceptibility genes account for a minority of the familial aggregation of the disease. To search for further breast cancer susceptibility genes, we performed a combined analysis of four genome-wide linkage screens, which included a total of 149 multiple case breast cancer families. All families included at least three cases of breast cancer diagnosed below age 60 years, at least one of whom had been tested and found not to carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Evidence for linkage was assessed using parametric linkage analysis, assuming both a dominant and a recessive mode of inheritance, and using nonparametric methods. The highest LOD score obtained in any analysis of the combined data was 1.80 under the dominant model, in a region on chromosome 4 close to marker D4S392. Three further LOD scores over 1 were identified in the parametric analyses and two in the nonparametric analyses. A maximum LOD score of 2.40 was found on chromosome arm 2p in families with four or more cases of breast cancer diagnosed below age 50 years. The number of linkage peaks did not differ from the number expected by chance. These results suggest regions that may harbor novel breast cancer susceptibility genes. They also indicate that no single gene is likely to account for a large fraction of the familial aggregation of breast cancer that is not due to mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2.

Purpose DNA mutation testing for breast cancer usually yields an uninformative result, which is a negative result in the absence of a known BRCA mutation within the family. However, few data are available on the psychological impact of this result. Moreover, the clinical heterogeneity within this group has not yet been considered. This study provides prospective data about the course of cancer-specific worry and distress for different groups of test applicants. Patients and Methods All DNA test applicants (n = 238) completed three questionnaires: before and 1 and 7 months after disclosure of a DNA mutation test. With repeated-measures analysis of variance, differences were assessed between BRCA1/2-positive women (n = 42), BRCA1/2–true-negative women (n = 43), and women with an uninformative test result (n = 153). Results On the group level, women with an uninformative result seemed to be reassured after disclosure (P < .001), but to a lesser extent than those women who received a true-negative result. However, not all women with an uninformative result reacted similarly: higher levels of worry and distress could be explained by relatively straightforward clinical variables, namely a personal history of cancer (P ≤ .001) and a higher pedigree-based risk (P ≤ .005). Furthermore, these clinical variables determined whether these women were either comparable to women who received a true-negative result or to BRCA mutation carriers. Conclusion Women with an uninformative result form a heterogeneous group of test applicants. The subpopulation of those with both a personal history of cancer and a relatively high pedigree-based risk expressed the highest levels of worry 7 months after DNA testing.

Unclassified variants in disease-causing genes: nonuniformity of genetic testing and counselling, a proposal for guidelines

Women's inaccuracy in recalling their breast cancer risk, even immediately after genetic counseling, has received much attention. However, scarce data are available about how women describe their risk in their own words and about what the risk information actually means to them. The present study aims to address interpretations questions and to assess whether these are congruent with the objective risk. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 123 women immediately after their (initial) counseling session. N-Vivo software was used to describe the data. The level of accuracy of recall depended strongly on the leniency of the criterion applied. For example, the level of verbal accuracy ranged from 25.8% (an exact match with the verbal label) to 98.4% (a more global awareness of having a high versus a low risk). In assessing the significance of personal risk information, we identified a wide variety of risk beliefs, and stress and coping responses. In general, women associated their risk with the medical options, for example, breast screening, that were available for them given their risk status. The results indicate that the accuracy of recall might be a limited outcome measure for the effectiveness of genetic counseling. First, this is because the level of accuracy of recall depends on how rigorously accuracy is defined. Secondly, because the probability of occurrence is just one of the elements comprising perceived risk, accuracy might rather apply to the distress, and to risk management behaviors that are elicited by the risk information. These beliefs that women hold about their risk status, and concomitant levels of stress should play a prominent role in genetic counseling.

Risk estimation in breast cancer families is often estimated by use of the Claus tables. We analyzed the family histories of 196 counselees; compared the Claus tables with the Claus, the BRCA1/2, the BRCA1/2/ models; and performed linear regression analysis to extend the Claus tables with characteristics of hereditary breast cancer. Finally, we compared the Claus extended method with the Claus, the BRCA1/2, and the BRCA1/2/u models. We found 47% agreement for Claus table versus Claus model; 39% agreement for Claus table versus BRCA1/2 model; 48% agreement for Claus table versus BRCA1/2/u model; 37% agreement for Claus extended method versus Claus model; 44% agreement for Claus extended model versus BRCA1/2 model; and 66% agreement for Claus extended method versus BRCA1/2/u model. The regression formula (Claus extended method) for the lifetime risk for breast cancer was 0.08 + 0.40 (*) Claus Table + 0.07 (*) ovarian cancer + 0.08 (*) bilateral breast cancer + 0.07 (*) multiple cases. This new method for risk estimation, which is an extension of the Claus tables, incorporates information on the presence of ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer, and whether there are more than two affected relatives with breast cancer. This extension might offer a good alternative for breast cancer risk estimation in clinical practice.

The frame-shifting mutation 1100delC in the cell-cycle-checkpoint kinase 2 gene (CHEK2) has been reported to be associated with familial breast cancer in families in which mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were excluded. To investigate the role of this variant as a candidate breast cancer susceptibility allele, we determined its prevalence in 237 breast cancer patients and 331 healthy relatives derived from 71 non-BRCA1/BRCA2 multiple-case early onset breast cancer families. Twenty-seven patients (11.4%) were carrying the CHEK2*1100delC variant. At least one carrier was found in 15 of the 71 families (21.1%). There was no evidence of cosegregation between the variant and breast cancer, but carrier patients developed breast cancer earlier than did noncarriers. We studied CHEK2 protein expression in 111, and loss of heterozygosity at CHEK2 in 88 breast tumors from these patients. Twelve of 15 tumors from carriers showed absent protein expression as opposed to 3 of 76 tumors from noncarriers (P0.001). CHEK2 loss of heterozygosity was associated with absence of protein expression but not with 1100delC carrier status. Thus, selecting for breast cancer cases with a strong familial background not accounted for by BRCA1 or BRCA2 strongly enriches for carriers of CHEK2*1100delC. Our results support a model in which CHEK2*1100delC interacts with an as yet unknown gene (or genes) to increase breast cancer risk.

Recently, we documented an increased risk for the occurrence of breast- and cartilaginous tumors in the same patient, statistically pointing towards a potential genetic trait. This trait is most probably not associated with mutations in the two major hereditary breast cancer genes since no cases of enchondroma or chondrosarcoma were found in Dutch BRCA1 and BRCA2 families. We were able to collect and review the tumor tissue samples from 34 patients with both breast- and cartilaginous tumors and compared histopathological and immunohistochemical features of these tumors with controls. Breast cancer controls were available from literature data generated to compare familial breast cancers with nonselected cases. Clinical markers for chondrosarcoma controls were collected from the Netherlands Committee of Bone Tumors. Immunohistochemical data on chondro-tumor controls were available from our own files. Breast tumors of patients with cartilaginous sarcomas showed a significantly higher mitotic count (P=0.001), contained less lymphocyte infiltrate (P=0.025) and less nuclear pleomorphism. Remarkably, all cartilaginous tumors are of one common histological category originating centrally (P=0.014). Estrogen receptor and p53 expression were significantly higher (P

Introduction SNPs rs2981582 and rs2981578, located in a linkage disequilibrium block (LD block) within intron 2 of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene (FGFR2), are associated with a mildly increased breast cancer risk. Allele-specific regulation of FGFR2 mRNA expression has been reported previously, but the molecular basis for the association of these variants with breast cancer has remained elusive to date. Methods mRNA levels of FGFR2 and three fibroblast growth factor genes (FGFs) were measured in primary fibroblast and epithelial cell cultures from 98 breast cancer patients and correlated to their rs2981578 genotype. The phosphorylation levels of downstream FGFR2 targets, FGF receptor substrate 2α (FRS2α) and extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), were quantified in skin fibroblasts exposed to FGF2. Immunohistochemical markers for angiogenesis and lymphocytic infiltrate were semiquantitatively assessed in 25 breast tumors. Results The risk allele of rs2981578 was associated with increased FGFR2 mRNA levels in skin fibroblasts, but not in skin epithelial cell cultures. FGFR2 mRNA levels in skin fibroblasts and breast fibroblasts correlated strongly in the patients from whom both cultures were available. Tumor-derived fibroblasts expressed, on average, eight times more FGFR2 mRNA than the corresponding fibroblasts from normal breast tissue. Fibroblasts with higher FGFR2 mRNA expression showed more FRS2α and ERK1/2 phosphorylation after exposure to FGF2. In fibroblasts, higher FGFR2 expression correlated with higher FGF10 expression. In 25 breast tumors, no associations between breast tumor characteristics and fibroblast FGFR2 mRNA levels were found. Conclusions The influence of rs2981578 genotypes on FGFR2 mRNA expression levels is cell type-dependent. Expression differences correlated well with signaling levels of the FGFR2 pathway. Our results suggest that the increased breast cancer risk associated with SNP rs2981578 is due to increased FGFR2 signaling activity in stromal fibroblasts, possibly also involving paracrine FGF10 signaling.

Background The recent development of new high-throughput technologies for SNP genotyping has opened the possibility of taking a genome-wide linkage approach to the search for new candidate genes involved in heredity diseases. The two major breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are involved in 30% of hereditary breast cancer cases, but the discovery of additional breast cancer predisposition genes for the non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families has so far been unsuccessful. Results In order to evaluate the power improvement provided by using SNP markers in a real situation, we have performed a whole genome screen of 19 non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families using 4720 genomewide SNPs with Illumina technology (Illumina's Linkage III Panel), with an average distance of 615 Kb/SNP. We identified six regions on chromosomes 2, 3, 4, 7, 11 and 14 as candidates to contain genes involved in breast cancer susceptibility, and additional fine mapping genotyping using microsatellite markers around linkage peaks confirmed five of them, excluding the region on chromosome 3. These results were consistent in analyses that excluded SNPs in high linkage disequilibrium. The results were compared with those obtained previously using a 10 cM microsatellite scan (STR-GWS) and we found lower or not significant linkage signals with STR-GWS data compared to SNP data in all cases. Conclusion Our results show the power increase that SNPs can supply in linkage studies.