Guidugli, Lucia

Abstract 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.

Abstract Sequencing tests assaying panels of genes or whole exomes are widely available for cancer risk evaluation. However, methods for classification of variants resulting from this testing are not well studied. We evaluated the ability of American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines to define the rate of mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in 180 medically relevant genes, including all ACMG designated reportable cancer and non-cancer genes, in individuals who met guidelines for hereditary cancer risk evaluation. We performed whole exome sequencing in 404 individuals in 257 families and classified 1640 variants from these genes. Potentially clinically actionable (likely-pathogenic/pathogenic, LP/P) versus nonactionable (VUS/likely-benign/benign) calls were 92% and 88% concordant with locus specific databases and Clinvar, respectively. LP/P mutations were identified in 11 of 25 breast cancer susceptibility genes in 27 BRCA1/2 negative families (11%). Evaluation of 84 additional autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility genes identified LP/P mutations in only four additional families (1.7%), suggesting they do not influence risk in this cohort. However, individuals from nine of 257 families (3.5%) had incidental LP/P mutations in 32 non-cancer disease genes, and 7% of individuals were monoallelic carriers of an LP/P mutation in 39 autosomal recessive cancer syndrome genes. Furthermore, 90% of individuals had at least one VUS. In summary, these data support the clinical utility of ACMG variant classification guidelines. In addition, evaluation of extended panels of cancer genes in breast/ovarian cancer families leads to only an incremental clinical benefit but substantially increases the complexity of the results. Citation Format: Kara N. Maxwell, Steven N. Hart, Joseph Vijai, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Tinu Thomas, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Vignesh Ravichandran, Raymond M. Moore, Chunling Hu, Lucia Guidugli, Brandon Wenz, Thomas P. Slavin, Susan M. Domchek, Mark E. Robson, Csilla Szabo, Susan L. Neuhausen, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Kenneth Offit, Fergus J. Couch, Katherine L. Nathanson. Evaluation of ACMG guideline classified variants in 180 cancer and incidental non-cancer genes in families with breast/ovarian cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 5220.

Abstract Background: Guidelines recommend germline mutation testing of breast cancer predisposition genes in triple negative (TN) breast cancer cases with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer or when diagnosed under age 60. However, the prevalence of mutations in these genes among TN cases unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer is not known. Methods: To assess the frequency of mutations in 16 predisposition genes in TN cases we screened a large cohort of TN patients (n=1824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer from 12 centers and 824 study matched unaffected controls for mutations using a panel-based sequencing approach. Results: Deleterious mutations were identified in 15% of TN patients: 8.5% had BRCA1, 2.7% had BRCA2, and 3.6% had mutations in 12 other genes. Mutations in non-BRCA1/2 genes encoding proteins implicated in homologous recombination repair of DNA double strand breaks were detected at the same frequency as in breast cancer families. TN cases with mutations had high-grade tumors and were diagnosed at an earlier age than non-mutated cases. However, 10% of TN cases diagnosed at ≥60 years and 5% with no family history of cancer were also found to carry mutations. Inactivating mutations in non-BRCA1/2 predisposition genes were associated with moderate to high risks of TN breast cancer. Conclusions: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines support clinical genetic testing of breast cancer predisposition genes in 95% of TN breast cancer patients carrying mutations in susceptibility genes. In contrast, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines in the U.K. do not support genetic testing of a substantial proportion of TN patients with predisposing alleles. Frequency tables for inherited mutations in known predisposition genes based on age of diagnosis and family history of cancer will allow for selection of TN patients most likely to carry mutations in the predisposition genes. Citation Format: Fergus J Couch, Steven N Hart, Priyanka Sharma, Amanda Ewart Toland, Penelope Miron, Janet E Olson, Andrew Godwin, Vernon S Pankratz, Curtis Olswold, Seth Slettedahl, Lucia Guidugli, Matthias W Beckmann, Brigitte Rack, Arif B Ekici, Irene Konstantopoulou, Florentia Fostira, George Fountzilas, Liisa M Pelttari, Song Yao, Judy Garber, Angela Cox, Hiltrud Brauch, Christine Ambrosone, Heli Nevanlinna, Drakoulis Yannoukakos, Susan L Slager, Celine M Vachon, Diana M Eccles, Peter A Fasching. Triple-negative breast cancer: Frequency of inherited mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-03.

Abstract Germline mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 underlie joint susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers, but do not account for all cases. Genome wide association studies show little overlap between common variants associated with breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility, whereas rare variants in genes initially identified as breast cancer susceptibility genes also confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer cases, unselected for breast cancer. Ovarian and breast tumors also are observed in Peutz-Jeghers and possibly in Lynch syndrome. To further elucidate rare germline susceptibilities for breast and ovarian cancer, we have ascertained a unique cohort of 90 BRCA1/2-negative probands with a personal history of breast cancer and ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer, unselected for family history. Cases are from the clinical genetics services of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and University of Pennsylvania. Analysis is ongoing using both targeted and exome sequencing approaches. Germline DNA of 69 cases will be subjected to whole exome sequencing. A total of 21 additional cases will undergo targeted sequencing for 28 genes (8 cases) and an extended panel of 54 genes (13 cases). The majority of ovarian cancers are high-grade serous epithelial ovarian carcinoma (n=51), in combination with invasive ductal or DCIS (n=36), invasive lobular (n=4), or unspecified (n=11) breast cancers. The remaining ovarian subgroups comprise other epithelial subtypes; endometrioid (n=9), clear cell (n=3), mucinous and low-grade serous (n=3) and non-epithelial (n=4) or unclassified (n=20), in combination with invasive ductal or DCIS (n=21), invasive lobular (n=5) or unspecified (n=13) breast cancers. Preliminary analysis of the targeted set of genes in 69 cases, reveals 43 predicted pathogenic coding or splice site variants; 17 of which are within PALB2, MSH2, MSH6, BARD1, FANCE, CDKN2A, TP53, SETD2, SIRT1, BRIP1, RAD50, and RAD51D and are not seen in dbSNP138, 1000 Genomes or Exome Variant Server ESP6500 and 26 variants with reported frequencies in MUTYH, MSH6, MLH1, FAM175A, RAD50, UIMC1, JARID2, PHF3, SIRT1, MRE11A, ATM, BRCA2, TP53BP1, CDH1, RAD51D, BRCA1, BABAM1 of less than 1% allele frequency in public databases. Analysis of these variants across and within histologic subtypes is being undertaken to look for specific genotype-phenotype correlations. Analysis of novel candidate genes and pathways by co-segregation, functional analysis, as well as external replication is underway to determine whether shared rare variants, mutated genes, or altered pathways confer cancer susceptibility in this cohort. Germline susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer is heterogenous and remains a critical research and clinical question. Improved understanding of the susceptibility genetics will allow further examination of the utility of targeted cancer prevention strategies in those who are found to be at risk. Citation Format: Kasmintan A. Schrader, Kara N. Maxwell, Joseph Vijai, Steven Hart, Tinu Thomas, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Lucia Guidugli, Robert Klein, Marina Corines, Liying Zhang, Susan Neuhausen, Jeffrey Weitzel, Namrata Gupta, Larry Norton, Clifford Hudis, Gad Getz, Mark Daly, Steven Lipkin, David Altshuler, Fergus Couch, Katherine Nathanson, Kenneth Offit. Determination of cancer susceptibility in probands with breast and ovarian cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 3282. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-3282

Abstract Massively parallel next generation sequencing data (NGS) has proved to be useful in identification of rare Mendelian disorders. Efforts are on-going to use NGS for discovery of novel rare variants in common disease etiology. Distinguishing rare private mutations from causal variants remains a major challenge in complex disorders. With decreasing cost, investigators are generating NGS data for common cancers. However, power and other considerations suggest that a consortia approach of pooling data is more likely to succeed where individual efforts fail. Combining data within such consortia brings its own level of challenges. We enumerate these challenges and suggest recommendations based on our experience of combining and harmonizing NGS data on 358 breast cancer samples from four centers; (City of Hope n=8, Mayo Clinic n=221, MSKCC n=96 and University of Pennsylvania n=33). Major concerns were ability of individual datasets to discover known and novel variations, depth of coverage across the exome, and quality of variants. Using pre- and post-processed data, we demonstrate an increased power for detecting variants when using a joint-calling method, quality control (QC) and quality assurance pre- and post-merge, as well as the advantages of combined annotations and filtering procedures. To generate a filtered list of high confident calls, we subset the data on Depth per Allele (DP), Genotyping Quality (GQ), Allele balance, Phred likelihood score (PL) as well as using frequency filters on the alternate allele both within the data and comparing against convenience control summaries. We describe general principles and QC measures to be adopted when NGS data is used from diverse sources, specifically applicable to large consortia. Note: This abstract was not presented at the meeting. Citation Format: Joseph Vijai, Steven Hart, Tinu Thomas, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Lucia Guidugli, Kasmintan Schrader, Kara Maxwell, Lauren Jacobs, Danylo Villano, Robert Klein, Steven Lipkin, Susan Neuhausen, Jeffrey Weitzel, David Altshuler, Fergus Couch, Kenneth Offit, Katherine Nathanson. Harmonization of next generation sequencing data within consortia for gene discovery in familial breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2378. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2378

Abstract BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) testing is uninformative in approximately 80% of families with clinical features of inherited susceptibility to breast cancer. Early identification of the individuals at risk in BRCAx families may lead to enhanced screening and prevention strategies, and potentially improved overall survival as has been seen for carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. A proportion of these families are likely explained by mutations in other high penetrance and moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Although multi-gene panels are now commercially available for clinical testing, only limited information is available on the spectrum of mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes in specific subgroups of high-risk breast cancer patients. We performed whole exome sequencing in 278 BRCA1/2 negative individuals with high-risk familial breast cancer, defined as a proband and at least two first or second degree relatives with breast cancer. Samples included 232 individuals from 97 families and 49 unrelated individuals, for a total of 146 independent cases. Data were analyzed for identification of all variants in 18 known high and moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Two of the 97 families and one of the 49 singletons (2% of independent cases) were found to have deleterious mutations in high penetrance genes, namely TP53 (2) and CDH1 (1). In addition, nine of 146 independent cases (6%) were found to have deleterious mutations in the other predisposition genes. Mutations in ATM and CHEK2 accounted for seven of the ten moderate penetrance mutations identified; additionally one family had a mutation in BLM, one in MRE11A, and one in PALB2. Furthermore, 15 of 146 independent cases (10%) were found to have variants of unknown significance (VUS) in one of eight genes. There were no deleterious mutations or VUS in eight of the 18 genes. Our data show that significant genetic heterogeneity exists in BRCAx families. Large-scale collaborative efforts will be required to attain sufficient power to understand how to appropriately apply these results clinically in cancer risk evaluation. Citation Format: Kara N. Maxwell, Lucia Guidugli, Kasmintan Schrader, Steven Hart, Vijai Joseph, Tinu Thomas, Xianshu Wang, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Robert Klein, Susan M. Domchek, Csilla Szabo, Susan Neuhausen, Jeffrey Weitzel, Katherine L. Nathanson, Kenneth Offit, Fergus Couch. High and moderate penetrance germline mutations in a number of genes are responsible for a small proportion of familial breast cancer risk in BRCAx families. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 1291. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-1291

Purpose Recent advances in DNA sequencing have led to the development of breast cancer susceptibility gene panels for germline genetic testing of patients. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 17 predisposition genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer to determine the utility of germline genetic testing for those with TNBC. Patients and Methods Patients with TNBC (N = 1,824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through 12 studies, and germline DNA was sequenced to identify mutations. Results Deleterious mutations were identified in 14.6% of all patients. Of these, 11.2% had mutations in the BRCA1 (8.5%) and BRCA2 (2.7%) genes. Deleterious mutations in 15 other predisposition genes were detected in 3.7% of patients, with the majority observed in genes involved in homologous recombination, including PALB2 (1.2%) and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C, and BRIP1 (0.3% to 0.5%). Patients with TNBC with mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age (P < .001) and had higher-grade tumors (P = .01) than those without mutations. Conclusion Deleterious mutations in predisposition genes are present at high frequency in patients with TNBC unselected for family history of cancer. Mutation prevalence estimates suggest that patients with TNBC, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer, should be considered for germline genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although mutations in other predisposition genes are observed among patients with TNBC, better cancer risk estimates are needed before these mutations are used for clinical risk assessment in relatives.

Abstract BACKGROUND Accurate evaluation of unclassified sequence variants in cancer predisposition genes is essential for clinical management and depends on a multifactorial analysis of clinical, genetic, pathologic, and bioinformatic variables and assays of transcript length and abundance. The integrity of assay data in turn relies on appropriate assay design, interpretation, and reporting. METHODS We conducted a multicenter investigation to compare mRNA splicing assay protocols used by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. We compared similarities and differences in results derived from analysis of a panel of breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene variants known to alter splicing (BRCA1: c.135-1G&gt;T, c.591C&gt;T, c.594-2A&gt;C, c.671-2A&gt;G, and c.5467+5G&gt;C and BRCA2: c.426-12_8delGTTTT, c.7988A&gt;T, c.8632+1G&gt;A, and c.9501+3A&gt;T). Differences in protocols were then assessed to determine which elements were critical in reliable assay design. RESULTS PCR primer design strategies, PCR conditions, and product detection methods, combined with a prior knowledge of expected alternative transcripts, were the key factors for accurate splicing assay results. For example, because of the position of primers and PCR extension times, several isoforms associated with BRCA1, c.594-2A&gt;C and c.671-2A&gt;G, were not detected by many sites. Variation was most evident for the detection of low-abundance transcripts (e.g., BRCA2 c.8632+1G&gt;A Δ19,20 and BRCA1 c.135-1G&gt;T Δ5q and Δ3). Detection of low-abundance transcripts was sometimes addressed by using more analytically sensitive detection methods (e.g., BRCA2 c.426-12_8delGTTTT ins18bp). CONCLUSIONS We provide recommendations for best practice and raise key issues to consider when designing mRNA assays for evaluation of unclassified sequence variants.