Hodge, James M

Abstract Purpose: To determine the relationship between germline pathogenic variants (PV) in cancer predisposition genes and the risk of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Experimental Design: Germline PV frequencies in breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D) were compared between DCIS cases and unaffected controls and between DCIS and invasive ductal breast cancer (IDC) cases from a clinical testing cohort (n = 9,887), a population-based cohort (n = 3,876), and the UK Biobank (n = 2,421). The risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) for DCIS cases with PV was estimated in the population-based cohort. Results: Germline PV were observed in 6.5% and 4.6% of women with DCIS in the clinical testing and population-based cohorts, respectively. BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PV frequencies were significantly lower among women with DCIS than those with IDC (clinical cohort: 2.8% vs. 5.7%; population-based cohort: 1.7% vs. 3.7%), whereas the PV frequencies for ATM and CHEK2 were similar. ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 PV were significantly associated with an increased risk of DCIS (OR > 2.0), but only BRCA2 PV were associated with high risk (OR > 4) in both cohorts. The cumulative incidence of CBC among carriers of PV in high-penetrance genes with DCIS was 23% over 15 years. Conclusions: The enrichment of PV in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 among women with DCIS suggests that multigene panel testing may be appropriate for women with DCIS. Elevated risks of CBC in carriers of PV in high-penetrance genes with DCIS confirmed the utility of testing for surgical decision-making.

Abstract Background: Breast cancer has been associated with monogenic, polygenic, and epidemiologic (clinical, reproductive, and lifestyle) risk factors, but studies evaluating the combined effects of these factors have been limited. Methods: We extended previous work in breast cancer risk modeling, incorporating pathogenic variants (PV) in six breast cancer predisposition genes and a 105-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS), to include an epidemiologic risk score (ERS) in a sample of non-Hispanic White women drawn from prospective cohorts and population-based case–control studies, with 23,518 cases and 22,832 controls, from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium. Results: The model predicts 4.4-fold higher risk of breast cancer for postmenopausal women with no predisposition PV and median PRS, but with the highest versus lowest ERS. Overall, women with CHEK2 PVs had >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, 15.6% of women with CHEK2 PVs and a family history of breast cancer, and 45.1% of women with CHEK2 PVs but without a family history of breast cancer, had low (<20%) predicted lifetime risk and thus were below the threshold for MRI screening. CHEK2 PV carriers at the 10th percentile of the joint distribution of ERS and PRS, without a family history of breast cancer, had a predicted lifetime risk similar to the general population. Conclusions: These results illustrate that an ERS, alone and combined with the PRS, can contribute to clinically relevant risk stratification. Impact: Integrating monogenic, polygenic, and epidemiologic risk factors in breast cancer risk prediction models may inform personalized screening and prevention efforts.

Abstract Purpose: Germline pathogenic variants in CHEK2 confer moderately elevated breast cancer risk (odds ratio, OR ∼ 2.5), qualifying carriers for enhanced breast cancer screening. Besides pathogenic variants, dozens of missense CHEK2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have been identified, hampering the clinical utility of germline genetic testing (GGT). Experimental Design: We collected 460 CHEK2 missense VUS identified by the ENIGMA consortium in 15 countries. Their functional characterization was performed using CHEK2-complementation assays quantifying KAP1 phosphorylation and CHK2 autophosphorylation in human RPE1–CHEK2-knockout cells. Concordant results in both functional assays were used to categorize CHEK2 VUS from 12 ENIGMA case–control datasets, including 73,048 female patients with breast cancer and 88,658 ethnicity-matched controls. Results: A total of 430/460 VUS were successfully analyzed, of which 340 (79.1%) were concordant in both functional assays and categorized as functionally impaired (N = 102), functionally intermediate (N = 12), or functionally wild-type (WT)–like (N = 226). We then examined their association with breast cancer risk in the case–control analysis. The OR and 95% CI (confidence intervals) for carriers of functionally impaired, intermediate, and WT-like variants were 2.83 (95% CI, 2.35–3.41), 1.57 (95% CI, 1.41–1.75), and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.08–1.31), respectively. The meta-analysis of population-specific datasets showed similar results. Conclusions: We determined the functional consequences for the majority of CHEK2 missense VUS found in patients with breast cancer (3,660/4,436; 82.5%). Carriers of functionally impaired missense variants accounted for 0.5% of patients with breast cancer and were associated with a moderate risk similar to that of truncating CHEK2 variants. In contrast, 2.2% of all patients with breast cancer carried functionally wild-type/intermediate missense variants with no clinically relevant breast cancer risk in heterozygous carriers.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 200 susceptibility loci for breast cancer, but these variants explain less than a fifth of the disease risk. Although gene–environment interactions have been proposed to account for some of the remaining heritability, few studies have empirically assessed this. We obtained genotype and risk factor data from 46,060 cases and 47,929 controls of European ancestry from population-based studies within the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). We built gene expression prediction models for 4,864 genes with a significant (P < 0.01) heritable component using the transcriptome and genotype data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. We leveraged predicted gene expression information to investigate the interactions between gene-centric genetic variation and 14 established risk factors in association with breast cancer risk, using a mixed-effects score test. After adjusting for number of tests using Bonferroni correction, no interaction remained statistically significant. The strongest interaction observed was between the predicted expression of the C13orf45 gene and age at first full-term pregnancy (PGXE = 4.44 × 10−6). In this transcriptome-informed genome-wide gene–environment interaction study of breast cancer, we found no strong support for the role of gene expression in modifying the associations between established risk factors and breast cancer risk. Our study suggests a limited role of gene–environment interactions in breast cancer risk.

PURPOSE The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in established breast cancer predisposition genes in women in the general population over age 65 years is not well-defined. However, testing guidelines suggest that women diagnosed with breast cancer over age 65 years might have < 2.5% likelihood of a PV in a high-penetrance gene. This study aimed to establish the frequency of PVs and remaining risks of breast cancer for each gene in women over age 65 years. METHODS A total of 26,707 women over age 65 years from population-based studies (51.5% with breast cancer and 48.5% unaffected) were tested for PVs in germline predisposition gene. Frequencies of PVs and associations between PVs in each gene and breast cancer were assessed, and remaining lifetime breast cancer risks were estimated for non-Hispanic White women with PVs. RESULTS The frequency of PVs in predisposition genes was 3.18% for women with breast cancer and 1.48% for unaffected women over age 65 years. PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were found in 3.42% of women diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)–negative, 1.0% with ER-positive, and 3.01% with triple-negative breast cancer. Frequencies of PVs were lower among women with no first-degree relatives with breast cancer. PVs in CHEK2, PALB2, BRCA2, and BRCA1 were associated with increased risks (odds ratio = 2.9-4.0) of breast cancer. Remaining lifetime risks of breast cancer were ≥ 15% for those with PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2. CONCLUSION This study suggests that all women diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer or ER-negative breast cancer should receive genetic testing and that women over age 65 years with BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs and perhaps with PALB2 and CHEK2 PVs should be considered for magnetic resonance imaging screening.