Search

Objective: To examine the effect of a premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer on objective and subjective cognition at least 10 years after RRSO.Design: A cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up, nested in a nationwide cohort.Setting: Multicentre in the Netherlands.Population or Sample: 641 women (66% BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers) who underwent either a premenopausal RRSO ≤ age 45 (n = 436) or a postmenopausal RRSO ≥ age 54 (n = 205). All participants were older than 55 years at recruitment.Methods: Participants completed an online cognitive test battery and a questionnaire on subjective cognition. We used multivariable regression analyses, adjusting for age, education, breast cancer, hormone replacement therapy, cardiovascular risk factors and depression.Main Outcome Measures: The influence of RRSO on objective and subjective cognition of women with a premenopausal RRSO compared with women with a postmenopausal RRSO.Results: After adjustment, women with a premenopausal RRSO (mean time since RRSO 18.2 years) performed similarly on objective cognitive tests compared with women with a postmenopausal RRSO (mean time since RRSO 11.9 years). However, they more frequently reported problems with reasoning (odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.1–3.1) and multitasking (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.4) than women with a postmenopausal RRSO. This difference between groups disappeared in an analysis restricted to women of comparable ages (60–70 years).Conclusions: Reassuringly, approximately 18 years after RRSO, we found no association between premenopausal RRSO and objective cognition.

Results of clinical genomic testing must be reported in a clear, concise format to ensure they are understandable and interpretable. It is important laboratories are aware of the information which is essential to make sure the results are not open to misinterpretation. As genomic testing has continued to evolve over the past decade, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genetic testing (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic) published in 2014 have been reviewed and updated to provide the genomic community with guidance on reporting unambiguous results. ispartof: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS vol:30 issue:9 pages:1011-1016 ispartof: location:England status: published

Table S1: Description of the BCAC studies contributing to COGS. Table S2: Predicted effects of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants included in the iCOGS array on protein function. Table S3: Frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants from iCOGS in breast cancer cases and controls. Table S4: Family studies of Y3035S showing scores for each family by constant relative risk and 75% penetrance. Supplementary References.

Breast cancer risks conferred by many germline missense variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, often referred to as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), have not been established. In this study, associations between 19 BRCA1 and 33 BRCA2 missense substitution variants and breast cancer risk were investigated through a breast cancer case–control study using genotyping data from 38 studies of predominantly European ancestry (41,890 cases and 41,607 controls) and nine studies of Asian ancestry (6,269 cases and 6,624 controls). The BRCA2 c.9104A>C, p.Tyr3035Ser (OR = 2.52; P = 0.04), and BRCA1 c.5096G>A, p.Arg1699Gln (OR = 4.29; P = 0.009) variant were associated with moderately increased risks of breast cancer among Europeans, whereas BRCA2 c.7522G>A, p.Gly2508Ser (OR = 2.68; P = 0.004), and c.8187G>T, p.Lys2729Asn (OR = 1.4; P = 0.004) were associated with moderate and low risks of breast cancer among Asians. Functional characterization of the BRCA2 variants using four quantitative assays showed reduced BRCA2 activity for p.Tyr3035Ser compared with wild-type. Overall, our results show how BRCA2 missense variants that influence protein function can confer clinically relevant, moderately increased risks of breast cancer, with potential implications for risk management guidelines in women with these specific variants. Cancer Res; 77(11); 2789–99. ©2017 AACR.

Class 4/5 mutations and Tumor Mutational Burden stratified by loss of heterozygosity status.

Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations and Variant Allele Frequencies detected in the FFPE-isolated tumor DNA

Purpose:Whether endometrial carcinoma (EC) should be considered part of the gBRCA1/2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is topic of debate. We sought to assess whether ECs occurring in gBRCA carriers are enriched for clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics, thereby supporting a causal relationship.Experimental Design:Thirty-eight gBRCA carriers that developed EC were selected from the nationwide cohort study on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON), and these were supplemented with four institutional cases. Tumor tissue was retrieved via PALGA (Dutch Pathology Registry). Nineteen morphologic features were scored and histotype was determined by three expert gynecologic pathologists, blinded for molecular analyses (UCM-OncoPlus Assay including 1213 genes). ECs with LOH of the gBRCA-wild-type allele (gBRCA/LOHpos) were defined “gBRCA-associated,” those without LOH (gBRCA/LOHneg) were defined “sporadic.”Results:LOH could be assessed for 40 ECs (30 gBRCA1, 10 gBRCA2), of which 60% were gBRCA/LOHpos. gBRCA/LOHpos ECs were more frequently of nonendometrioid (58%, P = 0.001) and grade 3 histology (79%, P < 0.001). All but two were in the TP53-mutated TCGA-subgroup (91.7%, P < 0.001). In contrast, gBRCA/LOHneg ECs were mainly grade 1 endometrioid EC (94%) and showed a more heterogeneous distribution of TCGA-molecular subgroups: POLE-mutated (6.3%), MSI-high (25%), NSMP (62.5%), and TP53-mutated (6.3%).Conclusions:We provide novel evidence in favor of EC being part of the gBRCA-associated HBOC-syndrome. gBRCA-associated ECs are enriched for EC subtypes associated with unfavorable clinical outcome. These findings have profound therapeutic consequences as these patients may benefit from treatment strategies such as PARP inhibitors. In addition, it should influence counseling and surveillance of gBRCA carriers.

Figure S1: BCRA2 p.Y3035S Pedigrees. Figure S2: Western blot of ectopically expressed full-length wildtype and mutant hBRCA2 protein in VC8 DR-GFP cells subjected to HDR assay. Figure S3: Purification of wildtype and mutant BRCA2 from human cells. Figure S4: Position of BRCA2 DNA binding domain (DBD) variants on a ribbon diagram of the murine DBD crystal structure.

Supplementary Table 1. Clinical characteristics of BRCA1/2 carriers including index cases in the Northern Netherlands (study population) and in the rest of the Netherlands (reference population). Supplementary Table 2. Overview of number of carriers (excluding index cases) at risk at each age-decade and number of breast cancer event for each age-decade. Supplementary Table 3. Cumulative incidence of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 carriers, excluding index cases, in the study population (Northern Netherlands) and reference population (rest of the Netherlands). Estimation of risks weighted to an equal contribution from the different birth cohorts in each population. Supplementary Table 4. Relative risks (hazard ratios (95% confidence interval)) of breast cancer for mutation spectrum, excluding index cases. Supplementary Table 5. Regional differences in the breast cancer risk of BRCA1/2 carriers including index cases (adjusted for birth year) in the Netherlands: the study population (Northern Netherlands) compared to the reference population (the rest of the Netherlands.)

Supplementary Material and Methods

Background: We aimed to quantify previously observed relatively high cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA2 carriers) older than 60 in the Northern Netherlands, and to analyze whether these could be explained by mutation spectrum or population background risk.Methods: This consecutive cohort study included all known pathogenic BRCA1/2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands (N = 1,050). Carrier and general reference populations were: BRCA1/2 carriers in the rest of the Netherlands (N = 2,013) and the general population in both regions. Regional differences were assessed with HRs and ORs. HRs were adjusted for birth year and mutation spectrum.Results: All BRCA1 carriers and BRCA2 carriers younger than 60 had a significantly lower breast cancer risk in the Northern Netherlands; HRs were 0.66 and 0.64, respectively. Above age 60, the breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands was higher than in the rest of the Netherlands [HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–14.35]. Adjustment for mutational spectrum changed the HRs for BRCA1, BRCA2 BRCA2 ≥60 years by −3%, +32%, and +11% to 0.75, 0.50, and 2.61, respectively. There was no difference in background breast cancer incidence between the two regions (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97–1.09).Conclusions: Differences in mutation spectrum only partly explain the regional differences in breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers, and for an even smaller part in BRCA1 carriers.Impact: The increased risk in BRCA2 carriers older than 60 may warrant extension of intensive breast screening beyond age 60. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(11); 2482–91. ©2014 AACR.

Personal and family history at initial referral of the family and personal DNA test.

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1-3, Figure 1 from Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Alleles and the Risk of Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Implications for Risk Prediction

Background & Aims: Lynch syndrome is a form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) caused by pathogenic germline variants (PV) in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Currently, many Western countries perform universal immunohistochemistry testing on CRC to increase the identification of Lynch syndrome patients and their relatives. For a clear understanding of health benefits and costs, data on its outcomes are required: proportions of Lynch syndrome, sporadic MMR-deficient (MMRd) cases, and unexplained MMRd cases. Methods: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting on universal MMR immunohistochemistry, followed by MMR germline analysis, until March 20, 2020. Proportions were calculated, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and diagnostics used, and random effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies. Results: Of 2723 identified articles, 56 studies covering 58,580 CRCs were included. In 6.22% (95% CI, 5.08%–7.61%; I2 = 96%) MMRd was identified. MMR germline PV was present in 2.00% (95% CI, 1.59%–2.50%; I2 = 92%), ranging from 1.80% to 7.27% based on completeness of diagnostics and age restriction. Immunohistochemistry outcomes were missing in 11.81%, and germline testing was performed in 76.30% of eligible patients. In 7 studies, including 6848 CRCs completing all diagnostic stages, germline PV and biallelic somatic MMR inactivation were found in 3.01% and 1.75%, respectively; 0.61% remained unexplained MMRd. Conclusions: Age, completeness, and type of diagnostics affect the percentage of MMR PV and unexplained MMRd percentages. Complete diagnostics explain almost all MMRd CRCs, reducing the amount of subsequent multigene panel testing. This contributes to optimizing testing and surveillance in MMRd CRC patients and relatives.

Contains fulltext : 291774.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant are advised to undergo premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy after completion of childbearing, to reduce their risk of ovarian cancer. Several studies reported less sexual pleasure 1 to 3 years after a premenopausal oophorectomy. However, the long-term effects of premenopausal oophorectomy on sexual functioning are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to study long-term sexual functioning in women at increased familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer who underwent a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy either before the age of 46 years (premenopausal group) or after the age of 54 years (postmenopausal group). Subgroup analyses were performed in the premenopausal group, comparing early (before the age of 41 years) and later (at ages 41-45 years) premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Between 2018 and 2021, 817 women with a high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer from an ongoing cohort study were invited to participate in our study. Because of a large difference in age in the study between the premenopausal and postmenopausal salpingo-oophorectomy groups, we restricted the comparison of sexual functioning between the groups to 368 women who were 60 to 70 years old at completion of the questionnaire (226 in the premenopausal group and 142 in the postmenopausal group). In 496 women with a premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, we compared the sexual functioning between women in the early premenopausal group (n=151) and women in the later premenopausal group (n=345). Differences between groups were analyzed using multiple regression analyses, adjusting for current age, breast cancer history, use of hormone replacement therapy, body mass index, chronic medication use (yes or no), and body image. RESULTS: Mean times since risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy were 20.6 years in the premenopausal group and 10.6 years in the postmenopausal group (P

Purpose: Germline genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants has been a part of clinical practice for >2 decades. However, no studies have compared the cancer risks associated with missense pathogenic variants (PVs) with those associated with protein truncating (PTC) variants.Methods: We collected 582 informative pedigrees segregating 1 of 28 missense PVs in BRCA1 and 153 pedigrees segregating 1 of 12 missense PVs in BRCA2. We analyzed 324 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA1 and 214 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA2. Cancer risks were estimated using modified segregation analysis.Results: Estimated breast cancer risks were markedly lower for women aged >50 years carrying BRCA1 missense PVs than for the women carrying BRCA1 PTC variants (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.9 [2.4-6.2] for PVs vs 12.8 [5.7-28.7] for PTC variants; P =.01), particularly for missense PVs in the BRCA1 C-terminal domain (HR = 2.8 [1.4-5.6]; P =.005). In case of BRCA2, for women aged >50 years, the HR was 3.9 (2.0-7.2) for those heterozygous for missense PVs compared with 7.0 (3.3-14.7) for those harboring PTC variants. BRCA1 p.[Cys64Arg] and BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] were associated with particularly low risks of breast cancer compared with other PVs.Conclusion: These results have important implications for the counseling of at-risk women who harbor missense PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes. (C) 2021 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Breast and prostate cancer risks; Pathogenic variant Riscos de càncer de mama i pròstata; Variants patogèniques Riesgos de cáncer de mama y próstata; Variantes patogénicas Background Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management. The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A20861 and PPRPGM-Nov20\100002. The research leading to these results has received funding from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) under IG 2018 - ID. 21389 and the Italian League for the Fight Against Cancer (LILT) under IG 2019 projects, P.I. Ottini Laura and Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research-Dipartimenti di Eccellenza-L. 232/2016. CIMBA: GCT is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Fellow. iCOGS and OncoArray data: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation and the Ontario Research Fund. Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR): UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC): Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). City of Hope - Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network (COH-CCGCRN): Research reported in this publication was supported by the NCI of the NIH under grant No. R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the NCI and the Office of the Director, NIH. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 No.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’) to S. Manoukian. Associazione CAOS Varese to M.G. Tibiletti. AIRC (IG2015 No.16732) to P. Peterlongo. National Centre for Scientific Research Demokritos (DEMOKRITOS): European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. German Cancer Research Center (DFKZ): German Cancer Research Center. Epidemiological Study of Familial Breast Cancer (EMBRACE): Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden National Health Service (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. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC): The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. AKG was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545 and R01 CA140323), The Kansas Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professor. Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica (FPGMX): FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). German Familial Breast Group (GC-HBOC): German Cancer Aid (grant No. 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE—Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project No. 713-241202, No. 713-241202, No. 14505/2470, and No. 14575/2470). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). Georgetown University (GEORGETOWN): the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. Ghent University Hospital (G-FAST): Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study the Netherlands (HEBON): the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HEBON thanks the registration teams of Dutch Cancer Registry (IKNL; S. Siesling, J. Verloop) and the Dutch Pathology database (PALGA; L. Overbeek) for part of the data collection. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO): The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “FEDER, una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. Iceland Landspitali – University Hospital (ILUH): Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program—grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade—grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto Breast Cancer Study (IPOBCS): Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study (KOHBRA): the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). Mayo Clinic (MAYO): NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. McGill University (MCGILL): Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MH CZ—DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS—NPS I—LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). Women’s College Research Institute Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study (NAROD): 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): the Intramural Research Program of the US NCI, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCG): Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Università di Pisa (PBCS): AIRC [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): 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 Israeli Cancer Association. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): the Swedish Cancer Society. University of Chicago (UCHICAGO): NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032 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. OIO is an American Cancer Society (ACS) Clinical Research Professor. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (UKFOCR): Cancer Research UK. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): NIH (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855); Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. Cancer Family Registry University of Pittsburg (UPITT/MWH): Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women’s Cancer Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (WCP): Dr Karlan is funded by the ACS Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. TN-D is a recipient of a Career Development Fellow from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia, ECF-17-001).

BackgroundFamilial clustering of melanoma suggests a shared genetic predisposition among family members, but only 10%–40% of familial cases carry a pathogenic variant in a known high-risk melanoma susceptibility gene. We investigated whether a melanoma-specific Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) is associated with melanoma risk in patients with genetically unexplained familial melanoma.MethodsDutch familial melanoma cases (n=418) were genotyped for 46 SNPs previously identified as independently associated with melanoma risk. The 46-SNP PRS was calculated and standardised to 3423 healthy controls (sPRS) and the association between PRS and melanoma risk was modelled using logistic regression. Within the case series, possible differences were further explored by investigating the PRS in relation to (1) the number of primary melanomas in a patient and (2) the extent of familial clustering of melanoma.ResultsThe PRS was significantly associated with melanoma risk, with a per-SD OR of 2.12 (95% CI 1.90 to 2.35, pConclusionOur work underlines the significance of a PRS in determining melanoma susceptibility and encourages further exploration of the diagnostic value of a PRS in genetically unexplained melanoma families.

BACKGROUNDProtein truncating variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and PALB2 are associated with increased breast cancer risk, but risks associated with missense variants in these genes are uncertain.METHODSCombining 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls, we sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1,146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1,425), CHEK2 (325) and PALB2 (472). We evaluated breast cancer risks according to five in-silico prediction-of-deleteriousness algorithms, functional protein domain, and frequency, using logistic regression models and also mixture models in which a subset of variants was assumed to be risk-associated.RESULTSThe most predictive in-silico algorithms were Helix (BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2) and CADD (ATM). Increased risks appeared restricted to functional protein domains for ATM (FAT and PIK domains) and BRCA1 (RING and BRCT domains). For ATM, BRCA1 and BRCA2, data were compatible with small subsets (approximately 7%, 2% and 0.6%, respectively) of rare missense variants giving similar risk to those of protein truncating variants in the same gene. For CHEK2, data were more consistent with a large fraction (approximately 60%) of rare missense variants giving a lower risk (OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.47-2.08)) than CHEK2 protein truncating variants. There was little evidence for an association with risk for missense variants in PALB2. The best fitting models were well calibrated in the validation set.CONCLUSIONSThese results will inform risk prediction models and the selection of candidate variants for functional assays, and could contribute to the clinical reporting of gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Nederland kent geen bevolkingsonderzoek naar prostaatkanker omdat de voordelen niet opwegen tegen de nadelen. De meeste prostaatkankers die worden gevonden met screening zijn niet agressief. Een goede familieanamnese helpt bij het inschatten van de kans op erfelijke prostaatkanker (HPC) en eventueel de indicatie voor klinisch genetisch onderzoek of een tweejaarlijkse PSA-test.

Introduction: Male breast cancer (BCa) is a rare disease accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancers (BC) and 1% of all cancers in males. The clinical management is largely extrapolated from female BCa. Few studies have examined the genomic landscape of male BCas, with six male BCas included in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Familial studies of male BCas have shown genomic changes similar to female BCa, while a larger targeted sequencing study of 59 male breast cancers identified recurrent mutations affecting PIK3CA and GATA3. To date, there is still limited information regarding the genomic landscape of male BCas; particularly in the context of identifying targeted treatments. To reveal genomic changes that characterize male BCas in the context of known cancer driver genes linked to prognosis and targeted agents, we performed a targeted sequencing study on 248 male BCas from the International Male Breast Cancer Program. Methods: 248 primary M0, ER+ve, HER2-ve male BCas enrolled in the Part 1 (retrospective joint analysis) International Male Breast Cancer Program of 1483 patients diagnosed between 1990-2010 (Cardoso et al. Annals of Oncology, 2018) were processed for nucleic acid extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues. Using the Thermo Fisher Scientific Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3 (OCAv3), a validated targeted sequencing panel currently used in the NCI-MATCH trial (NCT02465060), we evaluated mutational and copy number variations (CNVs) of genes that are prognostic or predictive to targeted therapies currently in use in the clinic or late-stage clinical trials. The OCAv3 DNA pan-cancer panel assays 115 genes for determining mutational status (48 full coding and 67 hotspot) as well as copy-number assessment in 43 genes. The OCAv3 uses Ampliseq-based technology linked to the Oncomine NGS workflow to identify actionable mutations and CNVs Results: Of the 248 samples assayed, 216 passed strict quality control parameters (87.1%). Using the Oncomine NGS workflow, actionable mutations at ≥5% variant allele frequency (VAF) were most frequently identified in PIK3CA (29.2%), BRCA2 (11.1%), NF1 (11.6%), indels in TP53 (10.6%), ATR (5.6%), ATRX (5.1%), indel BRCA2 (5.1%), TP53 point mutations (4.6%), MET (4.6%), ATM (4.6%), NOTCH2 (4.6%), CHEK1 (4.2%), FANCI (4.2%), PTEN (3.2%) with a number of additional genes identified at lower frequencies. Gene amplifications were most frequently detected in MYC (24.5%), FGFR1 (14.8%), CCND1 (12%), FGF3 (9.7%), FGF19 (9.7%), MDM2 (6.5%), CDK4 (1.4%), FGFR3, MDM4, ERBB2 (0.9% each), and FLT3, AR, MYCL, CDK6, IGF1R, FGFR4, KRAS, AKT3 and ESR1 (0.5% each). Although the results here describe the mutations and copy-number changes deemed to be actionable, further analysis of all non-actionable somatic mutations and CNVs will be presented and compared to female BCas previously assayed using the same panel. Conclusion: In this targeted sequencing study of the largest series of male BCas to our knowledge, we have revealed that PIK3CA continues to be a frequently altered gene in both male and female BCas. However, there is an enrichment of mutations in genes related to DNA repair in male BCs. Interestingly, while MYC is commonly amplified in female BCa, a higher frequency of amplified cases were seen in male BCas, in contrast to female BCas. Together with our previously generated transcriptional profiling data in this data set, we believe that both common and unique biological processes comprising male and female BCas will ultimately improve their clinical management and move towards the goal of precision medicine. This work has been funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF). Citation Format: Jane Bayani, Coralie Poncet, Cheryl Crozier, Quang M Trinh, Megan Hopkins, Aime Lambert Uwimana, Tammy Piper, Carrie Cunningham, Monika Sobol, Stefan Aebi, Kim Benstead, Oliver Bogler, Lissandra Dal Lago, Florentine Hilbers, Ingrid Hedenfalk, Larissa Korde, Barbro Linderholm, John Martens, Lavinia Middleton, Melissa Murray, Catherine Kelly, Cecilia Nilsson, Monika Nowaczyk, Stephanie Peeters, Aleksandra Peric, Peggy Porter, Carolien Schröder, Isabel T Rubio, Kathryn J Ruddy, Christi van Asperen, Danielle Van Den Weyngaert, Carolien HM van Deurzen, Elise van Leeuwen-Stok, Joanna Vermeij, Eric Winer, Lincoln D Stein, Sharon H Giordano, Fatima Cardoso, John MS Bartlett. The genomic landscape of male breast cancers using the oncomine comprehensive assay for actionable mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-03.

Lidewij Henneman,1 Christi J van Asperen,2 Jan C Oosterwijk,3 Fred H Menko,4 Liesbeth Claassen,5 Daniëlle RM Timmermans5 1Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 3Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Family Cancer Clinic, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 5Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsTel +31 20-4449815Email l.henneman@amsterdamumc.nlPurpose: Counselees’ preferences are considered important for the choice of risk communication format and for improving patient-centered care. We here report on counselees’ preferences for how risks are presented in familial breast cancer counseling and the impact of this preferred format on their understanding of risk.Patients and Methods: As part of a practice-based randomized controlled trial, 326 unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer received their lifetime risk in one of five presentation formats after standard genetic counseling in three Dutch familial cancer clinics: 1) in percentages, 2) in frequencies (“X out of 100”), 3) in frequencies plus graphical format (10× 10 human icons), 4) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk and 5) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk plus graphical format. Format preferences and risk understanding (accuracy) were assessed at 2-week follow-up by a questionnaire, completed by 279/326 women.Results: The most preferred risk communication formats were numbers combined with verbal descriptions (37%) and numbers only (26%). Of the numerical formats, most (55%) women preferred percentages. The majority (73%) preferred to be informed about both lifetime and 10-year age-related risk. Women who had received a graphical display were more likely to choose a graphical display as their preferred format. There was no significant effect between the intervention groups with regard to risk accuracy. Overall, women given risk estimates in their preferred format had a slightly better understanding of risk.Conclusion: The results suggest that the accuracy of breast cancer risk estimation is slightly better for women who had received this information in their preferred format, but the risk format used had no effect on women’s risk accuracy. To meet the most frequent preference, counselors should consider providing a time frame of reference (eg, risk in the next 10 years) in a numerical format, in addition to lifetime risk.Keywords: risk communication, breast cancer, genetic counseling, patient preference, understanding, risk accuracy

PURPOSE:To enhance classification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes in the cancer predisposition Lynch syndrome, we developed the cell-free in vitro MMR activity (CIMRA) assay. Here, we calibrate and validate the assay, enabling its integration with in silico and clinical data.METHODS:Two sets of previously classified MLH1 and MSH2 variants were selected from a curated MMR gene database, and their biochemical activity determined by the CIMRA assay. The assay was calibrated by regression analysis followed by symmetric cross-validation and Bayesian integration with in silico predictions of pathogenicity. CIMRA assay reproducibility was assessed in four laboratories.RESULTS:Concordance between the training runs met our prespecified validation criterion. The CIMRA assay alone correctly classified 65% of variants, with only 3% discordant classification. Bayesian integration with in silico predictions of pathogenicity increased the proportion of correctly classified variants to 87%, without changing the discordance rate. Interlaboratory results were highly reproducible.CONCLUSION:The CIMRA assay accurately predicts pathogenic and benign MMR gene variants. Quantitative combination of assay results with in silico analysis correctly classified the majority of variants. Using this calibration, CIMRA assay results can be integrated into the diagnostic algorithm for MMR gene variants.KEYWORDS:Lynch syndrome; assay calibration; functional assay; variant classification; variants of uncertain significance

BackgroundThe currently known breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are presently not used to guide clinical management. We explored whether a genetic test that incorporates a SNP-based polygenic risk score (PRS) is clinically meaningful in non-BRCA1/2high-risk breast cancer families.Methods101 non-BRCA1/2high-risk breast cancer families were included; 323 cases and 262 unaffected female relatives were genotyped. The 161-SNP PRS was calculated and standardised to 327 population controls (sPRS). Association analysis was performed using a Cox-type random effect regression model adjusted by family history. Updated individualised breast cancer lifetime risk scores were derived by combining the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm breast cancer lifetime risk with the effect of the sPRS.ResultsThe mean sPRS for cases and their unaffected relatives was 0.70 (SD=0.9) and 0.53 (SD=0.9), respectively. A significant association was found between sPRS and breast cancer, HR=1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.28, p=0.026. Addition of the sPRS to risk prediction based on family history alone changed screening recommendations in 11.5%, 14.7% and 19.8 % of the women according to breast screening guidelines from the USA (National Comprehensive Cancer Network), UK (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Netherlands (Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation), respectively.ConclusionOur results support the application of the PRS in risk prediction and clinical management of women from genetically unexplained breast cancer families.

Male breast cancer (BCa) is a rare disease accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancers and 1% of all cancers in males. The clinical management is largely extrapolated from female BCa. Several multigene assays are increasingly used to guide clinical treatment decisions in female BCa, however, there are limited data on the utility of these tests in male BCa. Here we present the gene expression results of 381 M0, ER+ve, HER2-ve male BCa patients enrolled in the Part 1 (retrospective analysis) of the International Male Breast Cancer Program. Using a custom NanoString™ panel comprised of the genes from the commercial risk tests Prosigna®, OncotypeDX®, and MammaPrint®, risk scores and intrinsic subtyping data were generated to recapitulate the commercial tests as described by us previously. We also examined the prognostic value of other risk scores such as the Genomic Grade Index (GGI), IHC4-mRNA and our prognostic 95-gene signature. In this sample set of male BCa, we demonstrated prognostic utility on univariate analysis. Across all signatures, patients whose samples were identified as low-risk experienced better outcomes than intermediate-risk, with those classed as high risk experiencing the poorest outcomes. As seen with female BCa, the concordance between tests was poor, with C-index values ranging from 40.3% to 78.2% and Kappa values ranging from 0.17 to 0.58. To our knowledge, this is the largest study of male breast cancers assayed to generate risk scores of the current commercial and academic risk tests demonstrating comparable clinical utility to female BCa., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Contains fulltext : 231700.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Individuals having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners face challenging decisions regarding their wish to have children. This study aimed to determine the effects of an online decision aid to support couples in making an informed decision regarding their reproductive options. A nationwide pretest-posttest study was conducted in the Netherlands among 131 participants between November 2016 and May 2018. Couples were eligible for participation if one partner had a pathogenic variant predisposing for an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome. Participants completed a questionnaire before use (T0), and at 3 months (T3) after use of the decision aid to assess the primary outcome measure informed decision-making, and the secondary outcome measures decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision self-efficacy. T0-T3 comparisons show an overall positive effect for all outcome measures (all ps < 0.05; knowledge (ES = - 1.05), decisional conflict (ES = 0.99), participants' decision self-efficacy (ES = -0.55), level of deliberation (ES = - 0.50), and realistic expectations (ES = - 0.44). Informed decision-making increased over time and 58.0% of the participants made an informed reproductive decision at T3. The online decision aid seems to be an appropriate tool to complement standard reproductive counseling to support our target group in making an informed reproductive decision. Use of the decision aid may lessen the negative psychological impact of decision-making on couples' daily life and wellbeing.

Background BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are recommended to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) at 35 to 45 years of age. RRSO substantially decreases ovarian cancer risk, but at the cost of immediate menopause. Knowledge about the potential adverse effects of premenopausal RRSO, such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction, and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is limited. Objective The aim of this study is to assess the long-term health effects of premenopausal RRSO on cardiovascular disease, bone health, cognitive functioning, urological complaints, sexual functioning, and HRQoL in women with high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Methods We will conduct a multicenter cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up, nested in a nationwide cohort of women at high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer. A total of 500 women who have undergone RRSO before 45 years of age, with a follow-up period of at least 10 years, will be compared with 250 women (frequency matched on current age) who have not undergone RRSO or who have undergone RRSO at over 55 years of age. Participants will complete an online questionnaire on lifestyle, medical history, cardiovascular risk factors, osteoporosis, cognitive function, urological complaints, and HRQoL. A full cardiovascular assessment and assessment of bone mineral density will be performed. Blood samples will be obtained for marker analysis. Cognitive functioning will be assessed objectively with an online neuropsychological test battery. Results This study was approved by the institutional review board in July 2018. In February 2019, we included our first participant. As of November 2020, we had enrolled 364 participants in our study. Conclusions Knowledge from this study will contribute to counseling women with a high familial risk of breast/ovarian cancer about the long-term health effects of premenopausal RRSO. The results can also be used to offer health recommendations after RRSO. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03835793; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03835793. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/24414

BACKGROUND BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are recommended to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) at 35 to 45 years of age. RRSO substantially decreases ovarian cancer risk, but at the cost of immediate menopause. Knowledge about the potential adverse effects of premenopausal RRSO, such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction, and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is limited. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assess the long-term health effects of premenopausal RRSO on cardiovascular disease, bone health, cognitive functioning, urological complaints, sexual functioning, and HRQoL in women with high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS We will conduct a multicenter cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up, nested in a nationwide cohort of women at high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer. A total of 500 women who have undergone RRSO before 45 years of age, with a follow-up period of at least 10 years, will be compared with 250 women (frequency matched on current age) who have not undergone RRSO or who have undergone RRSO at over 55 years of age. Participants will complete an online questionnaire on lifestyle, medical history, cardiovascular risk factors, osteoporosis, cognitive function, urological complaints, and HRQoL. A full cardiovascular assessment and assessment of bone mineral density will be performed. Blood samples will be obtained for marker analysis. Cognitive functioning will be assessed objectively with an online neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS This study was approved by the institutional review board in July 2018. In February 2019, we included our first participant. As of November 2020, we had enrolled 364 participants in our study. CONCLUSIONS Knowledge from this study will contribute to counseling women with a high familial risk of breast/ovarian cancer about the long-term health effects of premenopausal RRSO. The results can also be used to offer health recommendations after RRSO. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03835793; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03835793. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/24414

Importance The limited data on cancer phenotypes in men with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) have hampered the development of evidence-based recommendations for early cancer detection and risk reduction in this population. Objective To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview. Results Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P

Breast cancer risk is approximately twice as high in first‐degree relatives of female breast cancer cases than in women in the general population. Less than half of this risk can be attributed to the currently known genetic risk factors. Recessive risk alleles represent a relatively underexplored explanation for the remainder of familial risk. To address this, we selected 19 non‐BRCA1/2 breast cancer families in which at least three siblings were affected, while no first‐degree relatives of the previous or following generation had breast cancer. Germline DNA from one of the siblings was subjected to exome sequencing, while all affected siblings were genotyped using SNP arrays to assess haplotype sharing and to calculate a polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 160 low‐risk variants. We found no convincing candidate recessive alleles among exome sequencing variants in genomic regions for which all three siblings shared two haplotypes. However, we found two families in which all affected siblings carried the CHEK2*1100delC. In addition, the average normalized PRS of the “recessive” family probands (0.81) was significantly higher than that in both general population cases (0.35, P = .026) and controls (P = .0004). These findings suggest that the familial aggregation is, at least in part, explained by a polygenic effect of common low‐risk variants and rarer intermediate‐risk variants, while we did not find evidence of a role for novel recessive risk alleles., What's new? To find new breast cancer susceptibility alleles, these authors tested families in which at least three affected siblings had non‐BRCA1/2 breast cancer. No new susceptibility alleles emerged, but the analysis did reveal that on average, women from these families who had cancer had significantly higher polygenic risk scores than either sporadic cases or controls. This result highlights the importance of moderate risk alleles acting together in familial breast cancer.

Purpose Current interpretation guidelines for germline variants in high-risk cancer susceptibility genes consider predicted loss-of-function (LoF) variants, such as nonsense variants and variants in the canonical splice site sequences of BRCA2, to be associated with high cancer risk. However, some variant alleles produce alternative transcripts that encode (partially) functional protein isoforms leading to possible incorrect risk estimations. For accurate classification of variants it is therefore essential that alternative transcripts are identified and functionally characterized. Methods We systematically evaluated a large panel of human BRCA2 variants for the production of alternative transcripts and assessed their capacity to exert BRCA2 protein functionality. Evaluated variants included all single-exon deletions, various multiple-exon deletions, intronic variants at the canonical splice donor and acceptor sequences, and variants that previously have been shown to affect messenger RNA (mRNA) splicing in carriers. Results Multiple alternative transcripts encoding (partially) functional protein isoforms were identified (e.g., increment [E4-E7], increment [E6-E7], increment E[6q39_E8], increment [E10], increment [E12], increment E[12-14]). Expression of these transcripts did attenuate the impact of predicted LoF variants such as the canonical splice site variants c.631+2T>G, c.517-2A>G, c.6842-2A>G, c.6937+1G>A, and nonsense variants c.491T>A, c.581G>A, and c.6901G>T. Conclusion These results allow refinement of variant interpretation guidelines for BRCA2 by providing insight into the functional consequences of naturally occurring and variant-related alternative splicing events.

An online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making was developed. A two-phase usability test was conducted among 12 couples (N=22; 2 persons participated without their partner) at risk for hereditary cancer and 15 health care providers. Couples and health care providers expressed similar suggestions for improvements, and evaluated the modified decision aid as acceptable, easy to use, and comprehensible. The final decision aid was pilot tested (N=16) with paired sample t tests comparing main outcomes (decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options and decision self-efficacy) before (T0), immediately (T1) and 2weeks after (T2) use of the decision aid. Pilot testing indicated decreased decisional conflict scores, increased knowledge, and improved realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options, at T1 and T2. No effect was found for couples' decision self-efficacy. The positive findings during usability testing were thus reflected in the pilot study. The decision aid will be further evaluated in a nationwide pretest-posttest study to facilitate implementation in the onco-genetic counselling setting. Ultimately, it is expected that the decision aid will enable end-users to make an informed decision.

BACKGROUND: The effect of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is rarely examined. As carriers may increasingly undergo IVF as part of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), we examined the impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.METHODS: The study population consisted of 1550 BRCA1 and 964 BRCA2 mutation carriers, derived from the nationwide HEBON study and the nationwide PGD registry. Questionnaires, clinical records and linkages with the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to collect data on IVF exposure, risk-reducing surgeries and cancer diagnosis, respectively. Time-dependent Cox regression analyses were conducted, stratified for birth cohort and adjusted for subfertility.RESULTS: Of the 2514 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, 3% (n = 76) were exposed to ovarian stimulation for IVF. In total, 938 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (37.3%) were diagnosed with breast cancer. IVF exposure was not associated with risk of breast cancer (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46-1.36). Similar results were found for the subgroups of subfertile women (n = 232; HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.39-1.37) and BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.60-2.09). In addition, age at and recency of first IVF treatment were not associated with breast cancer risk.CONCLUSION: No evidence was found for an association between ovarian stimulation for IVF and breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Purpose: Biallelic pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes cause a recessive childhood cancer predisposition syndrome known as constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD). Family members with a heterozygous MMR variant have Lynch syndrome. We aimed at estimating cancer risk in these heterozygous carriers as a novel approach to avoid complicated statistical methods to correct for ascertainment bias.Methods: Cumulative colorectal cancer incidence was estimated in a cohort of PMS2- and MSH6-associated families, ascertained by the CMMRD phenotype of the index, by using mutation probabilities based on kinship coefficients as analytical weights in a proportional hazard regression on the cause-specific hazards. Confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by bootstrapping at the family level.Results: The estimated cumulative colorectal cancer risk at age 70 years for heterozygous PMS2 variant carriers was 8.7% (95% CI 4.3-12.7%) for both sexes combined, and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9-15.3%) for men and 5.9% (95% CI 1.6-11.1%) for women separately. For heterozygous MSH6 variant carriers these estimates are 11.8% (95% CI 4.5-22.7%) for both sexes combined, 10.0% (95% CI 1.83-24.5%) for men and 11.7% (95% CI 2.10-26.5%) for women.Conclusion: Our findings are consistent with previous reports that used more complex statistical methods to correct for ascertainment bias. These results underline the need for MMR gene-specific surveillance protocols for Lynch syndrome.

Background In healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) strongly reduces the risk of developing breast cancer (BC); however, no clear survival benefit of BRRM over BC surveillance has been reported yet. Methods In this Dutch multicenter cohort study, we used multivariable Cox models with BRRM as a time-dependent covariable to estimate the associations between BRRM and the overall and BC-specific mortality rates, separately for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results During a mean follow-up of 10.3 years, 722 out of 1712 BRCA1 (42%) and 406 out of 1145 BRCA2 (35%) mutation carriers underwent BRRM. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, we observed 52 deaths (20 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 10 deaths (one from BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratios were 0.40 (95% CI 0.20–0.90) for overall mortality and 0.06 (95% CI 0.01–0.46) for BC-specific mortality. BC-specific survival at age 65 was 93% for surveillance and 99.7% for BRRM. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, we observed 29 deaths (7 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 4 deaths (no BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratio for overall mortality was 0.45 (95% CI 0.15–1.36). BC-specific survival at age 65 was 98% for surveillance and 100% for BRRM. Conclusion BRRM was associated with lower mortality than surveillance for BRCA1 mutation carriers, but for BRCA2 mutation carriers, BRRM may lead to similar BC-specific survival as surveillance. Our findings support a more individualized counseling based on BRCA mutation type. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05345-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in