Search

This study aims to identify signatures of miR associated with hereditary, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive breast cancer (BC), and non-hereditary BC, either sporadic (SBC) or non-informative (BRCAX). Moreover, we search for signatures associated with tumor stage, immunohistochemistry and tumor molecular profile. Twenty formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) BCs, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRCAX and SBC, five per group were studied. Affymetrix platform miRNA v.3.0 was used to perform miR expression analysis. ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 protein expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. BRCA1, BRCA2 and RASSF1 methylation analysis, AURKA copy number variations, and BRCA1 and BRCA2 deletions, were studied by MLPA. We validated eight of the miR selected by the arrays in 77 BCs by qRT-PCR. The miR profiles associated with tumor features were studied applying the Sparse Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis. MiR discrimination capability to distinguish hereditary and non-hereditary BC was analyzed by the discriminant function. With 15 out of 1,733 hsa-miRs, it was possible to differentiate the four groups. BRCA1, BRCA2 and SBC were associated with clusters of hyper-expressed miRs, and BRCAX with hypo-expressed miRs. Hsa-miR-4417 and hsa-miR-423-3p expressions (included among the eight validated miRs) differentiated 70.1 % of hereditary and non-hereditary BCs. We found miR profiles associated with tumor features like node involvement, histological grade, ER, PR and HER2 expression. Regarding molecular parameters, we only found a weak association of miRs in BC harboring losses in AURKA. We conclude that array miR expression profiles can differentiate the four study groups using FFPE BC. However, miRs expression estimated by qRT-PCR differentiates only hereditary and non-inherited BCs. The miR expression array is a simple and rapid approach that could be useful to facilitate the identification of those SBC carrying genetic or epigenetic changes in BRCA genes responsible of BRCA-like phenotype. These patients could benefit from the treatment with PARP inhibitors.

The aim of the study is to investigate the relevance of rs1056663 and rs2708861 HUS1 polymorphisms, and rs104548, rs2981582 and rs2910164 polymorphisms of CASP8, FGFR2 and micro RNA 146A genes, respectively, as risk modifiers in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (BC/OC) and risk factors in sporadic BC. We performed a case-control study in 189 healthy controls (CG) and 538 BC/OC cases, 340 with familial history of BC/OC (130 carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations and 210 non-carriers) and 198 sporadic BC/OC. The polymorphisms were assessed by real-time PCR using primers and fluorescent-labelled hybridization probes. We found statistically significant differences between familial BC/OC and CG for rs1056663 and rs2708861 HSU1 polymorphisms and rs2981582 FGFR2 polymorphism, particularly in non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. In this group we found statistical differences for rs1056663 HSU1 and rs2981582 FGFR2 polymorphisms (p-trend < 0.006). The logistic regression confirmed that rs2981582 FGFR2 polymorphism (OR = 2.09; 95 % CI 1.35, 3.20) and the interaction between rs1056663 and rs2708861 HUS1 polymorphisms increased the risk of cancer (OR = 1.87; 95 % CI 1.19, 2.92). Furthermore, we found that the presence of rs1056663 and rs2708861 HUS1 polymorphisms is associated with early age of presentation of BC (p = 0.015) in the group of non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. In addition, no association of the polymorphisms studied in sporadic BC was observed. In conclusion, the HUS1 and FGFR2 polymorphisms act as risk BC modifiers in familial BC/OC, particularly in the group of non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations.

The true prevalence of BRCA1/BRCA2 (BRCAs) germline mutations in sporadic breast or ovarian cancer (SBC/SOC) in Caucasian population is not well established. The aim of the study is to establish the prevalence of BRCAs mutations in SBC to ponder its relevance in the programs of genetic counseling in cancer and to explore the genotype-phenotype relationship of these particular breast cancers. The study was performed in 495 SBC. We sought 46 BRCA1 and 53 BRCA2 pathogenic mutations reported in the Spanish population. We followed a high resolution melting method performed in the LightCycler 480 (Roche Diagnostics) for the screening of these Spanish mutations using 49 primer pairs. Eight different deleterious mutations, one of them novel, were detected in nine patients, five without family history of BC/OC, what yields a true prevalence of 1.05% for BRCAs mutations in SBC. Furthermore, we found 18 unknown variants. Larger tumour size (T > 1) and earlier presentation are the independent parameters associated with the presence of BRCAs pathogenic mutations in SBC (P < 0.01) and the BRCA1 mutations carriers develop steroid-receptors negative tumors. Our results indicate that the true prevalence of BRCAs germline deleterious mutations in SBC of Spaniards is low. However, this does not lessens its relevance since the presence of BRCAs mutations in SBC could represent circa 16% of total BRCAs mutations detected in BC. SBCs of BRCAs mutation carriers have phenotype more aggressiveness than SBC without BRCAs mutation.

The polymorphic genetic differences among individuals may modify the high risk for breast cancer (BC) and/or ovarian cancer (OC) susceptibility conferred by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. In the present study we investigate the relevance of RAD51 -135C > G, TP53 R72P, NQO1*2 and CASP8 D302H polymorphisms as potential modifiers of BC and/or OC susceptibility conferred by these mutations. The study group encompasses 390 BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers (182 affected with BC and/or OC and 208 unaffected) of 131 unrelated families studied in the Program of Genetic Counselling on Cancer of Valencia Community. The polymorphisms were detected in genomic DNA by ASRA method or real time PCR using fluorescently labeled probes. We found similar incidence of RAD51 -135C > G, TP53 R72P and NQO1*2 polymorphisms among affected and unaffected individuals considering BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations together and separately. However, the CASP8 D302H polymorphism was strongly associated with the absence of BC [OR = 3.41 (95% CI 1.33-8.78, P = 0.01)]. In fact, in the females with CASP8 D302H polymorphism the BC appeared at a median age of 58 in opposition to the 47 years observed for the wild type subjects (P = 0.03). Furthermore, the CASP8 D302H positive females showed a 50% probability of being free of BC by the age of 78 versus the 2% of the CASP8 negative ones. Our results support that the presence of the CASP8 D302H polymorphism diminishes the high risk of BC conferred by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, making possible that some of the carriers could escape from suffering BC along their life span.

Background: Alterations in BRCA1 gene are responsible for the majority of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers. However, the frequency of detected germline mutations is lower than expected by linkage analysis. Standard PCR-based screening methods are mainly used for detecting mutations, but the large genomic rearrangements are commonly overlooked. The purpose of this study was to confirm and characterize a novel deletion identified in BRCA1 gene which has not yet been reported to date., Methods: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification was used to analyze BRCA1 rearrangements in 255 unrelated index patients with familial breast and/or ovarian cancer negative for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations studied in Program of Genetic Counselling on Cancer of Valencia Community (Spain). The breakpoints of detected novel rearrangement were characterized by sequencing., Results and Discussion: Five different rearrangements in the BRCA1 gene were identified in five unrelated index patients out of the 225 (2%). We found four large genomic rearrangements already described consisting in a 1A/1B and 2 deletion; deletion of exons 5-7; deletion of exons 8-13; exon 20 deletion. Additionally, we found the novel g.8097&#95;22733del14637 deletion that encompasses exons 3-5. This deletion affects the RING domain of the BRCA1 protein and it is suggestive of having a negative impact on its function., Conclusion: The new mutation here reported broadens the mutational spectrum of large rearrangements. Furthermore, the five large rearrangements found in patients non-carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations reinforce the need of studying BRCA1 large genomic rearrangements in genetic counselling programs.

It is well established that mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. We here report 23 novel genetic variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes found in 349 cancer-prone unrelated families from Eastern Spain detected during the first 2 years of performance of the Program of Genetic Counseling of Valencia Community. Mutational screening was performed by pre-screening the heteroduplex formed in the PCR products obtained amplifying BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes by conformation sensitive electrophoresis. We detected 10 deletereous mutations, four in BRCA1 (three frame-shift (FS) and one nonsense mutation (NS)) and six in BRCA2 (four FS and one NS mutation). Moreover, we detected 13 unclassified variants, four in BRCA1 (one missense (MS), two synonymous (SYN) and one intronic (I) variant) and nine in BRCA2 (six MS, one SYN and two I). The relevance of the novel mutations is discussed. Our contribution broadens the BRCA1/2 world mutational spectra.