Citations

Background Clinical classification of rare sequence changes identified in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is essential for appropriate genetic counselling of individuals carrying these variants. We previously showed that variant BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln in the BRCA1 transcriptional transactivation domain demonstrated equivocal results from a series of functional assays, and proposed that this variant may confer low to moderate risk of cancer. Methods Measures of genetic risk (report of family history, segregation) were assessed for 68 BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) families recruited through family cancer clinics, comparing results with 34 families carrying the previously classified pathogenic BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp (R1699W) mutation at the same residue, and to 243 breast cancer families with no BRCA1 pathogenic mutation (BRCA-X). Results Comparison of BRCA1 carrier prediction scores of probands using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool revealed that BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln variant carriers had family histories that were less ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp mutation carriers (p<0.00001), but more ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA-X families (p=0.0004). Further, modified segregation analysis of the subset of 30 families with additional genotyping showed that BRCA1 c.5096G >A p.Arg1699Gln had reduced penetrance compared with the average truncating BRCA1 mutation penetrance (p=0.0002), with estimated cumulative risks to age 70 of breast or ovarian cancer of 24%. Conclusions Our results provide substantial evidence that the BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) variant, demonstrating ambiguous functional deficiency across multiple assays, is associated with intermediate risk of breast and ovarian cancer, highlighting challenges for risk modelling and clinical management of patients of this and other potential moderate-risk variants.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3). Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.

Abstract Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a lifetime breast cancer risk of 40% to 80%, suggesting the presence of risk modifiers. We previously identified significant associations in genetic variants in the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling pathway. Here, we investigate additional IGF signaling genes as risk modifiers for breast cancer development in BRCA carriers. Methods: A cohort of 1,019 BRCA1 and 500 BRCA2 mutation carriers were genotyped for 99 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in 13 genes. Proportional hazards regression was used to model time from birth to diagnosis of breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers separately. For linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks with multiple SNPs, an additive genetic model was used. For an SNP analysis, no additivity assumptions were made. Results: Significant associations were found between risk of breast cancer and LD blocks in IGF2 for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (global P values of 0.009 for BRCA1 and 0.007 for BRCA2), HTRA1 for BRCA1 carriers (global P value of 0.005), and MMP3 for BRCA2 carriers (global P = 0.0000007 for BRCA2). Conclusions: We identified significant associations of genetic variants involved in IGF signaling. With the known interaction of BRCA1 and IGF signaling and the loss of PTEN in a majority of BRCA1 tumors, this suggests that signaling through AKT may modify breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers. Impact: These results suggest potential avenues for future research targeting the IGF signaling pathway in modifying risk in BRCA1and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(8); 1690–702. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Inherited BRCA1/2 mutations confer elevated ovarian cancer risk. Knowledge of factors that can improve ovarian cancer risk assessment in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is important because no effective early detection for ovarian cancers exists. A cohort of 1,575 BRCA1 and 856 BRCA2 mutation carriers was used to evaluate haplotypes at ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CTIP, MRE11, NBS1, RAD50, RAD51, and TOPBP1 in ovarian cancer risk. In BRCA1 carriers, no associations were observed with ATM, BARD1, CTIP, RAD50, RAD51, or TOPBP1. At BRIP1, an association was observed for one haplotype with a multiple testing corrected P (Pcorr) = 0.012, although no individual haplotype was significant. At MRE11, statistically significant associations were observed for one haplotype (Pcorr = 0.007). At NBS1, we observed a Pcorr = 0.024 for haplotypes. In BRCA2 carriers, no associations were observed with CTIP, NBS1, RAD50, or TOPBP1. Rare haplotypes at ATM (Pcorr = 0.044) and BARD1 (Pcorr = 0.012) were associated with ovarian cancer risk. At BRIP1, two common haplotypes were significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (Pcorr = 0.011). At MRE11, we observed a significant haplotype association (Pcorr = 0.012), and at RAD51, one common haplotype was significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (Pcorr = 0.026). Variants in genes that interact biologically withBRCA1 and/or BRCA2 may be associated with modified ovarian cancer risk in women who carry BRCA1/2 mutations. [Cancer Res 2009;69(14):5801–10]

AbstractThe AURKA oncogene is associated with abnormal chromosome segregation and aneuploidy and predisposition to cancer. Amplification of AURKA has been detected at higher frequency in tumors from BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers than in sporadic breast tumors, suggesting that overexpression of AURKA and inactivation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 cooperate during tumor development and progression. The F31I polymorphism in AURKA has been associated with breast cancer risk in the homozygous state in prior studies. We evaluated whether the AURKA F31I polymorphism modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2. Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 was established to provide sufficient statistical power through increased numbers of mutation carriers to identify polymorphisms that act as modifiers of cancer risk and can refine breast cancer risk estimates in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. A total of 4,935 BRCA1 and 2,241 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 11 individuals carrying both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was genotyped for F31I. Overall, homozygosity for the 31I allele was not significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined [hazard ratio (HR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.77-1.06]. Similarly, no significant association was seen in BRCA1 (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.08) or BRCA2 carriers (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67-1.29) or when assessing the modifying effects of either bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy or menopausal status of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. In summary, the F31I polymorphism in AURKA is not associated with a modified risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(7):1416–21)

Abstract Germ line inactivating mutations in BRCA1 confer susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancer. However, the relevance of the many missense changes in the gene for which the effect on protein function is unknown remains unclear. Determination of which variants are causally associated with cancer is important for assessment of individual risk. We used a functional assay that measures the transactivation activity of BRCA1 in combination with analysis of protein modeling based on the structure of BRCA1 BRCT domains. In addition, the information generated was interpreted in light of genetic data. We determined the predicted cancer association of 22 BRCA1 variants and verified that the common polymorphism S1613G has no effect on BRCA1 function, even when combined with other rare variants. We estimated the specificity and sensitivity of the assay, and by meta-analysis of 47 variants, we show that variants with &lt;45% of wild-type activity can be classified as deleterious whereas variants with &gt;50% can be classified as neutral. In conclusion, we did functional and structure-based analyses on a large series of BRCA1 missense variants and defined a tentative threshold activity for the classification missense variants. By interpreting the validated functional data in light of additional clinical and structural evidence, we conclude that it is possible to classify all missense variants in the BRCA1 COOH-terminal region. These results bring functional assays for BRCA1 closer to clinical applicability. [Cancer Res 2007;67(4):1494–501]