Citations

Studies indicate variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results are challenging for genetic counselors and patients, often resulting in negative patient outcomes. Genetic counselors' current practices regarding VUS are unknown. This study utilized a national survey of genetic counselors (n = 932) to examine current practices and confidence related to disclosing BRCA VUS results and reclassification information. For participants (n = 398), descriptive statistics were calculated regarding patient demographic characteristics, practices and confidence, and cross tabulation was used to identify participant's actions when receiving a reclassified VUS. Upon receiving a BRCA VUS report, the majority reported providing patients with information about the frequency with which their VUS was seen and patient ancestry, but a minority discussed DNA banking. Most were confident in their understanding of, and ability to explain, VUS results to patients, but felt less confident about achieving high levels of patient understanding. Upon reclassification, the majority reported calling the patient and mailing the results, but when the reclassification was deleterious, the majority also met with the patient face‐to‐face. Given the lack of standard professional guidelines about informing patients of initial and reclassified VUS results, this overview provides important insight into genetic counselors' current practices and confidence.

AbstractBreast cancer risk factors and clinical outcomes vary by tumour marker expression. However, individual studies often lack the power required to assess these relationships, and large‐scale analyses are limited by the need for high throughput, standardized scoring methods. To address these limitations, we assessed whether automated image analysis of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays can permit rapid, standardized scoring of tumour markers from multiple studies. Tissue microarray sections prepared in nine studies containing 20 263 cores from 8267 breast cancers stained for two nuclear (oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor), two membranous (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and epidermal growth factor receptor) and one cytoplasmic (cytokeratin 5/6) marker were scanned as digital images. Automated algorithms were used to score markers in tumour cells using the Ariol system. We compared automated scores against visual reads, and their associations with breast cancer survival. Approximately 65–70% of tissue microarray cores were satisfactory for scoring. Among satisfactory cores, agreement between dichotomous automated and visual scores was highest for oestrogen receptor (Kappa = 0.76), followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Kappa = 0.69) and progesterone receptor (Kappa = 0.67). Automated quantitative scores for these markers were associated with hazard ratios for breast cancer mortality in a dose‐response manner. Considering visual scores of epidermal growth factor receptor or cytokeratin 5/6 as the reference, automated scoring achieved excellent negative predictive value (96–98%), but yielded many false positives (positive predictive value = 30–32%). For all markers, we observed substantial heterogeneity in automated scoring performance across tissue microarrays. Automated analysis is a potentially useful tool for large‐scale, quantitative scoring of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays available in consortia. However, continued optimization, rigorous marker‐specific quality control measures and standardization of tissue microarray designs, staining and scoring protocols is needed to enhance results.

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:BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at substantially increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer. The incomplete penetrance coupled with the variable age at diagnosis in carriers of the same mutation suggests the existence of genetic and nongenetic modifying factors. In this study, we evaluated the putative role of variants in many candidate modifier genes. Methods: Genotyping data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers, for known variants (n = 3,248) located within or around 445 candidate genes, were available through the iCOGS custom-designed array. Breast and ovarian cancer association analysis was performed within a retrospective cohort approach. Results: The observed P values of association ranged between 0.005 and 1.000. None of the variants was significantly associated with breast or ovarian cancer risk in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, after multiple testing adjustments. Conclusion: There is little evidence that any of the evaluated candidate variants act as modifiers of breast and/or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: Genome-wide association studies have been more successful at identifying genetic modifiers of BRCA1/2 penetrance than candidate gene studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(1); 308–16. ©2014 AACR.

Significance The major portion of hereditary breast cancer still remains unexplained, and many susceptibility loci are yet to be found. Exome sequencing of 24 high-risk familial BRCA1/2 -negative breast cancer patients and further genotyping of a large sample set of breast/ovarian cancer cases and controls was used to discover previously unidentified susceptibility alleles and genes. A significant association of a FANCM nonsense mutation with breast cancer, especially triple-negative breast cancer, identifies FANCM as a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Identification of such risk alleles is expected to improve cancer risk assessment for breast cancer patients and families, and may lead to improvements in the prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.

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.

Abstract Background: Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), unlike ERα, classically functions as a tumor suppressor in vitro. However, ERβ's biological functions in vivo and predictive/prognostic value in breast cancer are controversial. Methods: Expression of ERβ protein was determined using a well characterized and validated ERβ specific monoclonal antibody that only recognizes the full-length form of this receptor (PPG5/10) in the following 3 cohorts: 1) a cohort with all breast cancer subtypes (n = 182), 2) a prospective NCCTG adjuvant tamoxifen trial for postmenopausal women with ERα positive breast cancer with long-term follow-up (n = 198) and 3) a cohort of 80 triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs). To elucidate the biological functions of ERβ in breast cancer, novel ERβ expressing MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines were developed and characterized using multiple techniques and were examined for responsiveness to various ERβ targeted therapies. Results: About one-third of all breast tumors, regardless of sub-type, were shown to express nuclear ERβ and this expression was independent of ERα or HER2. In the NCCTG 89-30-52 cohort, breast cancer recurrence rates were significantly associated with ERβ protein expression with 10 year recurrence rates of 25%, 15% and 4% for zero, low or high levels of ERβ expression respectively. Interestingly, in TNBCs, nuclear ERβ was expressed at intermediate or high levels in 24% of tumors. In the triple negative MDA-MB-231 cell line, expression of ERβ led to inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis in response to estrogen and multiple ERβ specific agonists. Conversely, these same treatments induced proliferation of ERβ-expressing MCF7 cells which endogenously express ERα. However, ERβ expression sensitized MCF7 cells to the anti-proliferative effects of anti-estrogens. Microarray analysis and RT-PCR profiling of MDA-MB-231-ERβ cells revealed that estrogen and ERβ agonists highly induced the expression of multiple cystatins, a family of small secreted cysteine protease inhibitors which function as tumor suppressors, and potently inhibited canonical TGFβ signaling. Conditioned media isolated from estrogen or ERβ agonist treated MDA-MB-231-ERβ cells suppressed the proliferation rates and inhibited TGFβ signaling in other TNBC cell lines, effects that were completely reversed following the depletion of cystatins from the conditioned media. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that ERβ is expressed in a substantial proportion of breast cancers and may have value as a predictive and/or prognostic biomarker. Therapeutic targeting of ERβ may have clinical benefit in multiple breast cancer sub-types; however, the specific drug of choice may vary based on ERα status. Specifically, we have demonstrated that ERβ expression in ERα+ MCF7 cells sensitizes them to the effectiveness of anti-estrogens, an observation that was confirmed in women enrolled in a prospective adjuvant tamoxifen trial. In TNBCs, where targeted therapies are lacking, our data suggest that targeting ERβ with either estrogen or ERβ specific agonists will elicit anti-tumor effects through the induction of cystatins and inhibition of TGFβ signaling resulting in tumor regression and improved patient outcomes. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P6-04-03.