TP53-based interaction analysis identifies cis-eQTL variants for TP53BP2, FBXO28, and FAM53A that associate with survival and treatment outcome in breast cancer
Association of breast cancer risk with genetic variants showing differential allelic expression: Identification of a novel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 4q21
Abstract Multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer is increasing in popularity in the USA. Many panels include genes identified as hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) genes despite limited data regarding the precise cancer risks associated with mutations in these genes. Here we report on results from BreastNext and OvaNext panel testing of 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MRE11A, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51C, RAD51D, TP53) in a cohort of 15,083 individuals. The majority of individuals were from high-risk breast and/or ovarian (Br/Ov) cancer families, with 92.4% of all probands meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network HBOC testing criteria. Pathogenic mutations were identified in 9.4% of the overall cohort. To estimate gene-specific breast and ovarian cancer risks, case-control analyses were performed comparing the frequencies of pathogenic mutations from Caucasian breast or ovarian cancer cases from BreastNext and OvaNext with frequencies from Caucasian, non-Finnish, non-TCGA controls from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database. Mutations in the well studied ATM and CHEK2 genes were associated with moderate risks (OR>2) of breast cancer and mutations in PALB2 were associated with high-risks (OR>5) of breast cancer, consistent with previous reports. In addition, the study suggested that pathogenic mutations in MSH6, RAD51D, CDH1, and NF1 are associated with moderate to high risks of breast cancer. In contrast, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 mutations were associated with high risks of ovarian cancer, PALB2 mutations were associated with moderate risks, but ATM and CHEK2 mutations were not associated with increased ovarian cancer risk. In addition, modeling of missense mutations in the predisposition genes using in silico prediction algorithms suggested that missense mutations in CDH1, CHEK2, MSH2, and MSH6 are associated with moderate risks of breast cancer and missense mutations in RAD51C increase risks of ovarian cancer. This large breast and ovarian cancer case-control analysis provides useful data for many predisposition genes previously lacking risk estimates, and should prove useful for clinical risk management of patients after clinical panel testing. Citation Format: Fergus J. Couch, David E. Goldgar, Steven N. Hart, Emily Hallberg, Raymond Moore, Huong Meeks, Robert Huether, Holly LaDuca, Elizabeth Chao, Jill Dolinsky. Breast and ovarian cancer risks associated with cancer predisposition gene mutations identified by multigene panel testing. [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 2597.
Abstract 4685: Characterization of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes
Abstract Panel-based germline genetic testing of established breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes is widely used in high-risk clinics to inform on risks of breast and ovarian cancer. While most protein truncating mutations identified in predisposition genes are associated with moderate to high risks of these cancers, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), in the form of missense and intronic variants, have an undefined relevance to cancer. Many hundreds of VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 identified by clinical genetic testing over the last 20 years still have uncertain clinical relevance. In addition, VUS in other known predisposition genes are being identified by current panel-testing in up to 10% of individuals without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. These VUS cause problems in cancer risk estimation and clinical management of patients undergoing clinical genetic testing. In an effort to evaluate the clinical significance of VUS in cancer predisposition genes we have developed functional assays that characterize the impact of the variants on the functions of the proteins encoded by the predisposition genes. In particular, a homology directed repair reporter assay providing a quantitative measure of homologous recombination repair of DNA double strand breaks has been developed for characterization of VUS in homologous recombination associated genes. When applied to 13 known pathogenic and 30 known neutral variants from the DNA binding domain of BRCA2, this assay exhibits 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity. Based on these results a model estimating the probability of pathogenicity of each BRCA2 VUS was developed. The HDR assay and probability model has now been applied to 230 BRCA2 VUS identified through genetic testing. Here we identify 80 BRCA2 variants that are deficient in HDR activity. We further combined these results with prior probabilities of pathogenicity derived from the sequence based Align GVGD in silico prediction model to estimate the posterior probability of pathogenicity for each VUS. Our results suggest that in the absence of family based segregation information, results from the HDR functional assay and in silico prediction models can be used to predict the pathogenicity of BRCA2 VUS. The assay has also been used to characterize VUS in the PALB2 and RAD51C predisposition genes, leading to identification of a subset of missense variants that are deficient in HDR repair activity and may be associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. These results will prove useful for improved risk assessment of carriers of these BRCA2, PALB2 and RAD51C variants and their family members and for validation of other approaches to mutation classification. Citation Format: Fergus J. Couch, Hermela Shimelis, Andreas Schroeder, Chunling Hu, Emily Hallberg, Gary Lipton, Edwin Iversen, Noralane M. Lindor. Characterization of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 4685. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-4685
Inherited Mutations in 17 Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes Among a Large Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cohort Unselected for Family History of Breast Cancer
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.
Investigation of gene‐environment interactions between 47 newly identified breast cancer susceptibility loci and environmental risk factors
A large genotyping project within the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) recently identified 41 associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and overall breast cancer (BC) risk. We investigated whether the effects of these 41 SNPs, as well as six SNPs associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negative BC risk are modified by 13 environmental risk factors for BC. Data from 22 studies participating in BCAC were pooled, comprising up to 26,633 cases and 30,119 controls. Interactions between SNPs and environmental factors were evaluated using an empirical Bayes‐type shrinkage estimator. Six SNPs showed interactions with associated p ‐values ( p int ) <1.1 × 10 −3 . None of the observed interactions was significant after accounting for multiple testing. The Bayesian False Discovery Probability was used to rank the findings, which indicated three interactions as being noteworthy at 1% prior probability of interaction. SNP rs6828523 was associated with increased ER‐negative BC risk in women ≥170 cm (OR = 1.22, p = 0.017), but inversely associated with ER‐negative BC risk in women <160 cm (OR = 0.83, p = 0.039, p int = 1.9 × 10 −4 ). The inverse association between rs4808801 and overall BC risk was stronger for women who had had four or more pregnancies (OR = 0.85, p = 2.0 × 10 −4 ), and absent in women who had had just one (OR = 0.96, p = 0.19, p int = 6.1 × 10 −4 ). SNP rs11242675 was inversely associated with overall BC risk in never/former smokers (OR = 0.93, p = 2.8 × 10 −5 ), but no association was observed in current smokers (OR = 1.07, p = 0.14, p int = 3.4 × 10 −4 ). In conclusion, recently identified BC susceptibility loci are not strongly modified by established risk factors and the observed potential interactions require confirmation in independent studies.