Search

Understanding how gender norms affect parents' communication of genetic and cancer risk information to their children can enable healthcare professionals to better facilitate cascade genetic testing. We conducted a qualitative study with semi‐structured interviews to determine social factors associated with parents carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants who communicated cancer prevention practices to their children. Thirty adult carriers (23 women, 7 men) participated in the interviews. All had at least one child aged over 8 years old. Interview topics included their discovery of the variants, their relationship to their body and to the risk of cancer, as well as disclosure to and subsequent communication with their children after testing positive for BRCA1/2. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively, and the major themes identified were identified and compared. We described the roles played by the BRCA1/2 carriers and their partners in communicating cancer prevention practices to their children, from how they managed their own risk of cancer after testing positive, to how they disclosed the risks linked to these pathogenic variants to their children. We also described their involvement in the process of their children going for professional genetic consultation. Gender norms lead women to be more attentive than men to their own health and that of their loved ones. In the context of the transmission of genetic information to children, gender differences in behavior are reinforced by perceptions of the risks of BRCA1/2 variants and women's related health management practices. Cancer prevention is shaped by complex links between gender norms and health management practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Neoadjuvant hormone therapy (HT) promotes breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and minimizes treatment-related toxicities for oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2 negative breast cancer (BC). We aimed to evaluate the response rates to an AI (anastrozole) or an antioestrogen (fulvestrant) and to identify specific biomarkers of sensitivity to both treatments. Patients and Methods: A phase II multicentre, open-label trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of anastrozole and fulvestrant. 116 postmenopausal patients (pts) with ER positive, HER2 negative, operable BC were recruited in 6 centers and randomly assigned to receive either neoadjuvant anastrozole (arm A; 1mg/day) or fulvestrant (arm B; 500mg, with a loading dose during first month then q4w) for 4 months (mo). Pts with a good clinical response estimated by the clinician at 4 mo were allowed to pursue treatment for 2 more mo (i.e. up to 6 mo). The primary endpoint was to evaluate the best clinical response (by palpation) by RECIST criteria at 6 mo (or 4 mo). US and MR imaging were performed at baseline, after 1 mo treatment, and before surgery. Pathological response was evaluated using Sataloff classification. Follow-up is planned for 5 yrs. Results: Between Oct 2007 and Apr 2011, 59 pts were randomized to arm A and 57 to arm B. Main baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the 2 arms: Median age was 68 yrs- old (53-91) in arm A and 74 yrs-old (51-88) in arm B. Histological grades were EE I-II in 53 pts (89 %) and 49 pts (86%) and median clinical size before treatment was 41.5 mm and 42.3 mm in arm A and B respectively. Neither SAE nor grade 3/4 toxicity was reported. The most common treatment-related AEs were grade1/2 hot flushes (27% and 12% of pts in arm A and B respectively), and musculoskeletal symptoms (20% and 21%). 35 pts in arm A and 29 pts in arm B continued assigned treatment up to 6 mo depending on the clinical response evaluated at 4 mo. Also, the clinical response rate was estimated at 4 mo orat 6 mo. 1 death post-surgery was reported in arm B with no proven relationship with treatment. Overall clinical response rates (CR + PR) at 4 or 6 mo were 62% (CI 95% [49-75]) in arm A and 46% (CI 95% [32-59]) in arm B. Clinical response rate amelioration at 6 mo was observed among 15% of pts in each arm. BCS was performed in 59% of pts in arm A and 49% in arm B. (1 pt from arm B refused surgery). Pathological response according to Sataloff classification: TA and TB tumor responses were observed in 17/59 pts (29%) in arm A vs 12/57 (21%) in arm B respectively. Conclusions: Both anastrozole and fulvestrant show excellent efficacy and tolerability as neoadjuvant therapy in post-menopausal pts with endocrine-dependent, HER2-negative BC. Objective response rates and improvement in surgical outcome seem to be more frequent with anastrozole. However disease stabilization and tolerability are in favour of fulvestrant. Our data suggest that neo-adjuvant HT improves surgical options for HR+ post-menopausal women. Correlation between clinical & pathological responses and outcome as well as the identification of markers of sensitivity to both treatments will be also studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylation ( BRCA1 meth) increases the risk of early-onset breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer and ovarian cancer. As mosaic BRCA1 meth are believed to occur de novo, their role in family breast/ovarian cancer has not been assessed., Patients: Blood-derived DNA from 20 unrelated affected cases from families with aggregation of breast/ovarian cancer, but with no germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 / 2 , PALB2 or RAD51C/D , were screened by methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting. CpG analysis was performed by pyrosequencing on blood and buccal swab. Two probands carried a pathogenic variant in a moderate-penetrance gene ( ATM and BARD1 ), and 8 of 18 others (44%) carried BRCA1 meth (vs none of the 20 age-matched controls). Involvement of BRCA1 in tumourigenesis in methylated probands was demonstrated in most tested cases by detection of a loss of heterozygosity and a homologous recombination deficiency signature. Among the eight methylated probands, two had relatives with breast cancer with detectable BRCA1 meth in blood, including one with high methylation levels in two non-tumour tissues., Conclusions: The high prevalence of mosaic BRCA1 meth in patients with breast/ovarian cancer with affected relatives, as well as this first description of a family aggregation of mosaic BRCA1 meth, shows how this de novo event can contribute to hereditary breast/ovarian cancer pedigrees., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Breast cancers (BC) are rare in men and are often caused by constitutional predisposing factors. In women, mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylations (MBPM) are frequent events, detected in 4-8% of healthy subjects. This constitutional epimutation increases risk of early-onset and triple-negative BC. However, the role of MBPM in male BC predisposition has never been assessed. We screened 40 blood samples from men affected by BC, and performed extensive tumour analysis on MBPM-positive patients. We detected two patients carrying MBPM. Surprisingly, tumour analysis revealed that neither of these two male BCs were caused by the constitutional BRCA1 epimutations carried by the patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In breast or ovarian cancer (BC/OC) patients with evocative personal and/or family history, multigene panel sequencing is performed on blood to diagnose hereditary predispositions. Additionally, BRCA1/BRCA2 testing can be performed on tumor sample for therapeutic purpose. The accuracy of multigene panel tumor analysis on BC/OC to detect predisposing germline pathogenic variants (gPV) has not been precisely assessed. By comparing sequencing data from blood and fresh-frozen tumor we show that tumor genomic instability causes pitfalls to consider when performing tumor testing to detect gPV. Even if loss of heterozygosity increases germline signal in most cases, somatic copy number variants (CNV) can mask germline CNV and collapse point gPV variant allele frequency (VAF). Moreover, VAF does not allow an accurate distinction between germline and somatic pathogenic variants., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Height, body mass index (BMI), and weight gain are associated with breast cancer risk in the general population. It is unclear whether these associations also exist for carriers of pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes., Patients and Methods: An international pooled cohort of 8091 BRCA1/2 variant carriers was used for retrospective and prospective analyses separately for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cox regression was used to estimate breast cancer risk associations with height, BMI, and weight change., Results: In the retrospective analysis, taller height was associated with risk of premenopausal breast cancer for BRCA2 variant carriers (HR 1.20 per 10 cm increase, 95% CI 1.04-1.38). Higher young-adult BMI was associated with lower premenopausal breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR 0.75 per 5 kg/m 2 , 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and BRCA2 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89) variant carriers in the retrospective analysis, with consistent, though not statistically significant, findings from the prospective analysis. In the prospective analysis, higher BMI and adult weight gain were associated with higher postmenopausal breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers (HR 1.20 per 5 kg/m 2 , 95% CI 1.02-1.42; and HR 1.10 per 5 kg weight gain, 95% CI 1.01-1.19, respectively)., Conclusion: Anthropometric measures are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers, with relative risk estimates that are generally consistent with those for women from the general population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

APC germline pathogenic variants result in predisposition to familial adenomatous polyposis and extraintestinal tumours such as desmoid fibromatosis, medulloblastomas and thyroid cancers. They have also been recently involved in ovarian microcystic stromal tumours. APC inactivation has been described at the tumour level in epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs). Here, we report the identification of APC germline pathogenic variants in two patients diagnosed with premenopausal EOC in early 30s, with no other pathogenic variant detected in the known ovarian cancer predisposing genes. Subsequent tumour analysis showed neither a second hit of APC inactivation nor β-catenin activation. Both tumours did not have a homologous recombination (HR) deficiency, pointing towards the implication of other genes than those involved in HR. APC may contribute to the carcinogenesis of EOC in a multifactorial context. Further studies are required to clarify the role of APC in predisposition to EOC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Three partially overlapping breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) comprising 77, 179 and 313 SNPs have been proposed for European-ancestry women by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) for improving risk prediction in the general population. However, the effect of these SNPs may vary from one country to another and within a country because of other factors., Objective: To assess their associated risk and predictive performance in French women from (1) the CECILE population-based case-control study, (2) BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic variant (PV) carriers from the GEMO study, and (3) familial breast cancer cases with no BRCA1/2 PV and unrelated controls from the GENESIS study., Results: All three PRS were associated with breast cancer in all studies, with odds ratios per standard deviation varying from 1.7 to 2.0 in CECILE and GENESIS, and hazard ratios varying from 1.1 to 1.4 in GEMO. The predictive performance of PRS 313 in CECILE was similar to that reported in BCAC but lower than that in GENESIS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.67 and 0.75, respectively). PRS were less performant in BRCA2 and BRCA1 PV carriers (AUC = 0.58 and 0.54 respectively)., Conclusion: Our results are in line with previous validation studies in the general population and in BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Additionally, we showed that PRS may be of clinical utility for women with a strong family history of breast cancer and no BRCA1/2 PV, and for those carrying a predicted PV in a moderate-risk gene like ATM, CHEK2 or PALB2., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DS-L and LG coordinated the genotyping of SNPs included in the PRS of the MammoRisk® test commercialized by Predilife until December 2021. This genotyping was performed in the Department of Genetics of the Institut Curie. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors., Methods: BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1 , RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous., Results: BARD1 , RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010., Conclusions: These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1 , RAD51C , RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors ACA, DFE, AL, AC and TC are named inventors of BOADICEA v5 commercialised by Cambridge Enterprise. AL is now employed by Illumina., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Women with pathogenic germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants have a higher risk of breast cancer than in the general population. International guidelines recommend specific clinical and radiological breast follow-up. This specific breast screening program has already been shown to be of clinical benefit, but no information is available concerning the use of prognostic factors or specific survival to guide follow-up decisions. We evaluated "high-risk" screening in a retrospective single-center study of 520 women carrying pathogenic germline variants of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene treated for breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2016. We compared two groups of women: the incidental breast cancer group (IBCG) were followed before breast cancer diagnosis (N = 103), whereas the prevalent breast cancer group (PBCG) (N = 417) had no specific follow-up for high risk before breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were diagnosed at an earlier stage in the IBCG than in the PBCG: T0 in 64% versus 19% of tumors, (p < 0.00001), and N0 in 90% vs. 75% (p < 0.00001), respectively. Treatment differed significantly between the 2 groups: less neoadjuvant chemotherapy (7.1% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.00001), adjuvant chemotherapy (47.7% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.004) and more mastectomies (60% vs. 42% p < 0.0001) in the IBCG vs PBCG groups respectively. Overall and breast cancer-specific mortality were similar between the two groups. However, the patients in the IBCG had a significantly longer metastasis-free survival than those in the PBCG, at three years (96.9% [95% CI 93.5-100] vs. 92.30% [95% CI 89.8-94.9]; p = 0.02), suggesting a possible long-term survival advantage., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Purpose: To provide precise age-specific risk estimates of cancers other than female breast and ovarian cancers associated with pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for effective cancer risk management., Methods: We used data from 3,184 BRCA1 and 2,157 BRCA2 families in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 to estimate age-specific relative (RR) and absolute risks for 22 first primary cancer types adjusting for family ascertainment., Results: BRCA1 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 4.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 16.96), pancreatic (RR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.68), and stomach (RR = 2.17; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.77) cancers. Associations with colorectal and gallbladder cancers were also suggested. BRCA2 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 44.0; 95% CI, 21.3 to 90.9), stomach (RR = 3.69; 95% CI, 2.40 to 5.67), pancreatic (RR = 3.34; 95% CI, 2.21 to 5.06), and prostate (RR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.63 to 3.03) cancers. The stomach cancer RR was higher for females than males (6.89 v 2.76; P = .04). The absolute risks to age 80 years ranged from 0.4% for male breast cancer to approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer for BRCA1 carriers and from approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer to 27% for prostate cancer for BRCA2 carriers., Conclusion: In addition to female breast and ovarian cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are associated with increased risks of male breast, pancreatic, stomach, and prostate (only BRCA2 PVs) cancers, but not with the risks of other previously suggested cancers. The estimated age-specific risks will refine cancer risk management in men and women with BRCA1/2 PVs., Competing Interests: Timothy R. RebbeckHonoraria: AstraZeneca (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (I) Andrew LeeEmployment: IlluminaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I am an inventor of the BOADICEA model that is licensed to Cambridge Enterprise (part of the University of Cambridge) for commercialization. I have received royalties from Cambridge Enterprise. Norbert ArnoldHonoraria: AstraZeneca Åke BorgHonoraria: Roche, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca Sandrine CaputoResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/France (Inst) Wendy K. ChungConsulting or Advisory Role: RegeneronResearch Funding: Biogen Chrystelle ColasConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/Merck, Pfizer Miguel de la HoyaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca D. Gareth EvansHonoraria: AstraZeneca Tanja N. FehmConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche George FountzilasStock and Other Ownership Interests: GENPREX Inc (I), ARIAD (I), Deciphera Pharmaceuticals Inc (I), Daiichi Sankyo, RFL Holdings, FORMYCONHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Roche (I), LEO Pharma (I), Pfizer (I)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck (I), Pfizer (I), K.A.M Oncology/Hematology (I) Megan FronePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Receive royalties for being a codeveloper of CancerGene Connect Eric HahnenConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca Helen HansonHonoraria: Pfizer Beth Y. KarlanConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, Merck, Mercy Bioanalytics, GRAILResearch Funding: GOG Foundation (Inst), NCI-NRG Oncology (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: US and EU patent on gene signatureOther Relationship: Elsevier Irene KonstantopoulouSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Ava KwongHonoraria: Stryker, AstraZeneca Taiwan Limited, Roche Singapore, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Hong Kong Ltd Joanne Ngeow Yuen YieResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Rita K. SchmutzlerHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Clovis, MSD/AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD/AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Amgen Leigha SenterConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MerckSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca/Merck Christian F. SingerHonoraria: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneResearch Funding: Novartis, Sanofi, Myriad Genetics, Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis Dominique Stoppa-LyonnetHonoraria: AstraZeneca/Merck (Inst) Soo Hwang TeoSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche Sebastian A. WagnerConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer Antonis C. AntoniouPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Inventor of the BOADICEA model, which has been licensed to Cambridge Enterprise for commercialization. May receive royalties if commercialization is realized.No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Up to 80% of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic variants remain of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic can guide breast and ovarian cancer prevention measures and treatment by PARP inhibitors. We report the first results of the ongoing French national COVAR (cosegregation variant) study, the aim of which is to classify BRCA1/2 VUSs. The classification method was a multifactorial model combining different associations between VUSs and cancer, including cosegregation data. At this time, among the 653 variants selected, 101 (15%) distinct variants shared by 1,624 families were classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic or benign/likely benign by the COVAR study. Sixty-six of the 101 (65%) variants classified by COVAR would have remained VUSs without cosegregation data. Of note, among the 34 variants classified as pathogenic by COVAR, 16 remained VUSs or likely pathogenic when following the ACMG/AMP variant classification guidelines. Although the initiation and organization of cosegregation analyses require a considerable effort, the growing number of available genetic tests results in an increasing number of families sharing a particular variant, and thereby increases the power of such analyses. Here we demonstrate that variant cosegregation analyses are a powerful tool for the classification of variants in the BRCA1/2 breast-ovarian cancer predisposition genes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D.S.-L. and the Institut Curie have received honoraria for her participation in education meetings organized by AstraZeneca or Tesaro. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant-based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS 313 ) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes., Methods: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS 313 and CBC risk., Results: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS 313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06-1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS 313 , HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07-1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS 313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively., Conclusion: The PRS 313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS 313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: We report a very rare case of familial breast cancer and diffuse gastric cancer, with germline pathogenic variants in both BRCA1 and CDH1 genes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of such an association.Family description: The proband is a woman diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 52 years. She requested genetic counselling in 2012, at the age of 91 years, because of a history of breast cancer in her daughter, her sister, her niece and her paternal grandmother and was therefore concerned about her relatives. Her sister and maternal aunt also had gastric cancer. She was tested for several genes associated with hereditary breast cancer., Results: A large deletion of BRCA1 from exons 1 to 7 and two CDH1 pathogenic cis variants were identified., Conclusion: This complex situation is challenging for genetic counselling and management of at-risk individuals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers., Methods: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort., Results: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10 -72 ). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10 -50 ). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10 -22 ) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10 -12 ) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar., Conclusion: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.

The disclosure of genetic information is an important issue in cancer prevention. This study based on a French national cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GENEPSO-PS cohort, N=233 ) aimed to assess the prevalence of parental disclosure of genetic information to children 10 years after genetic testing, with a focus on gender differences. Most participants (n = 193, 131 women) reported having children. A total of 72.0% of offspring had received genetic information (88.8% for adult offspring, p < .001), with no differences according to the gender of the mutation-carrying parent. While female carriers disclosed genetic information more often than male carriers (54.1% versus 38.3%, p = .029), they did so irrespective of the gender of their offspring. Moreover, female carriers who had developed incident cancer after genetic testing disclosed genetic information more frequently than unaffected female carriers (70.7% versus 48.5%, p = .005). A multivariate analysis confirmed the effects of both gender and cancer on disclosure to offspring. The same results were obtained when the analysis was restricted to adult offspring. This study reveals high rates of disclosure of positive BRCA1/2 mutation status to children 10 years after genetic testing, irrespective of the gender of the carrier/offspring. However, female carriers disclosed genetic information more frequently than male carriers.