Search

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 (pheterogeneity = 0.0006) and stronger family histories of breast cancer (pheterogeneity<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<0.001). By contrast, in BRCA2 families, no evidence was found for risk heterogeneity by birth cohort, family history or mutation location. Conclusions: BRCA1 mutation carriers conferred lower overall breast and ovarian cancer risks than reported so far, while the estimates of BRCA2 mutations were among the lowest. The low estimates for BRCA1 might be due to older birth cohorts, a moderate family history

Background: Colorectal adenomatous polyposis is associated with a high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and is frequently caused by germline mutations in APC or MUTYH. However, in about 20-30% of patients no underlying gene defect can be identified. In this study, we tested if recently identified CRC risk variants play a role in patients with >10 adenomas. Methods We analysed a total of 16 SNPs with a reported association with CR

Background 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). Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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

Purpose: Patients with Lynch syndrome are at high risk for colon and endometrial cancer, but also at an elevated risk for other less common cancers. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to provide risk estimates for these less common cancers in proven carriers of pathogenic mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from the German and Dutch national Lynch syndrome registries. Seven different cancer types were analyzed: stomach, small bowel, urinary bladder, other urothelial, breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. Age-, sex- and MMR gene-specific cumulative risks (CRs) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Sex-specific incidence rates were compared with general population incidence rates by calculating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the impact of sex and mutated gene on cancer risk. Results: The cohort comprised 2,118 MMR gene mutation carriers (MLH1, n = 806; MSH2, n = 1,004; MSH6, n = 308). All cancers were significantly more frequent than in the general population. The highest risks were found for male small bowel cancer (SIR, 251; 95% CI, 177 to 346; CR at 70 years, 12.0; 95% CI, 5.7 to 18.2). Breast cancer showed an SIR of 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.4) and a CR of 14.4 (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.3). MSH2 mutation carriers had a considerably higher risk of developing urothelial cancer than MLH1 or MSH6 carriers. Conclusion: The sex- and gene-specific differences of less common cancer risks should be taken into account in cancer surveillance and prevention programs for patients with Lynch syndrome.

Background: Birt-Hogg-Dubé (BHD) syndrome is an autosomal dominant condition caused by germline FLCN mutations, and characterised by fibrofolliculomas, pneumothorax and renal cancer. The renal cancer risk, cancer phenotype and pneumothorax risk of BHD have not yet been fully clarified. The main focus of this study was to assess the risk of renal cancer, the histological subtypes of renal tumours and the pneumothorax risk in BHD. Methods: In this study we present the clinical data of 115 FLCN mutation carriers from 35 BHD families. Results: Among 14 FLCN mutation carriers who developed renal cancer 7 were <50 years at onset and/or had multifocal/bilateral tumours. Five symptomatic patients developed metastatic disease. Two early-stage cases were diagnosed by surveillance. The majority of tumours showed characteristics of both eosinophilic variants of clear cell and chromophobe carcinoma. The estimated penetrance for renal cancer and pneumothorax was 16% (95% minimal confidence interval: 6-26%) and 29% (95% minimal confidence interval: 9-49%) at 70 years of age, respectively. The most frequent diagnosis in families without identified FLCN mutations was familial multiple discoid fibromas. Conclusion: We confirmed a high yield of FLCN mutations in clinically defined BHD families, we found a substantially increased lifetime risk of renal cancer of 16% for FLCN mutation carriers. The tumours were metastatic in 5 out of 14 patients and tumour histology was not specific for BHD. We found a pneumothorax risk of 29%. We discuss the implications of our findings for diagnosis and management of BHD.

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.

Background: CHEK2 has previously been excluded as a major cause of Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). One particular CHEK2 germline mutation, c.1100delC, has been shown to be associated with elevated breast cancer risk. The prevalence of CHEK21100delC differs between populations and has been found to be relatively high in the Netherlands. The question remains nevertheless whether CHEK2 germline mutations contribute to the Li-Fraumeni phenotype.Methods: We have screened 65 Dutch TP53-negative LFS/LFL candidate patients for CHEK2 germline mutations to determine their contribution to the LFS/LFL phenotype.Results: We identified six index patients with a CHEK2 sequence variant, four with the c.1100delC variant and two sequence variants of unknown significance, p.Phe328Ser and c.1096-?_1629+?del.Conclusion: Our data show that CHEK2 is not a major LFS susceptibility gene in the Dutch population. However, CHEK2 might be a factor contributing to individual tumour development in TP53-negative cancer-prone families.

More than 75% of the reported mutations in the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer gene, BRCA1, result in truncated proteins. We have used the protein truncation test (PIT) to screen for mutations in exon 11, which encodes 61 % of BRCA1. In 45 patients from breast and/or ovarian cancer families we found six novel mutations: two single nucleotide insertions, three small deletions (1−5 bp) and a nonsense mutation identified two unrelated families. Furthermore, we were able to amplify the remaining coding region by RT−PCR using lymphocyte RNA. Combined with PTT, we detected aberrantly spliced products affecting exons 5 and 6 in one of two BRCA1−linked families examined. The protein truncation test promises to become a valuable technique in detecting BRCA1 mutations.