Feasibility of Infectious Prion Digestion Using Mild Conditions and Commercial Subtilisin

Two serine protease enzymes, subtilisin 309 and subtilisin 309-v,were used to digest brain homogenates containing high levels of prion infectivity using mildly alkaline conditions to investigate prion decontamination methods. To establish that PrPres infectivity was eliminated, we utilized the Rocky Mountain Laboratory (RML) mouse-adapted scrapie model system for bioassay. Only one digestion condition (subtilisin 309 at 138mAU/ml, 55 ◦C and 14 h digestion time pH 7.9) was considered to be highly relevant statistically (P \u3c 0.001) compared to control, with 52% of challenged mice surviving until the end of the study period. In contrast, treatment of PrPres by autoclaving at 134 ◦C or treatment with hypochlorite at a concentration of 20,000ppm completely protected mice from prionosis. Further, in vitro assays suggest that potential proteolytic based PrPres decontamination methods must use high enzyme concentration, pH values \u3e9.0, and elevated temperatures to be a safely efficacious, thereby limiting applicability on delicate surgical instruments and use in the environment

TGFBR1*6A and Int7G24A variants of transforming growth factor-β receptor 1 in Swedish familial and sporadic breast cancer

Two common variants in transforming growth factor-β receptor 1 (TGFBR1), TGFBR1*6A and Int7G24A, A allele, have been shown to act as low-penetrance tumour susceptibility alleles in several common cancers, including breast cancer. We evaluated the TGFBR1 9A/6A and Int7G24A variant frequencies in two breast cancer cohorts; a population-based cohort of breast cancer with defined family history (n=459) and in breast cancer patients from a familial cancer clinic (n=340) and in 856 controls from the Stockholm region. The familial patients from both cohorts were further divided into high- and low-risk familial breast cancer based on pedigree analysis. There was no overall association with either variant and breast cancer risk. The TGFBR1*6A allelic frequency was, however, higher in low-risk familial breast cancer (0.138), compared to controls (0.106; P=0.04). No significant difference was found in the high-risk familial (0.102) or sporadic cases (0.109; P=0.83 and 0.83, respectively). TGFBR1*6A carrier status was further associated with a high-grade sporadic breast cancer (odds ratio: 2.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.01–5.11; P=0.049). These results indicate that the TGFBR1*6A variant may be associated with an increased risk of low-risk familial breast cancer and might be a marker for poorly differentiated breast cancer. The Int7G24A variant was not associated with breast cancer risk or clinical presentation of the disease including prognosis in our material

Evaluation of the BOADICEA risk assessment model in women with a family history of breast cancer

The ability of the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model to predict BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and breast cancer incidence in women with a family history of breast cancer was evaluated. Observed mutations in 263 screened families were compared to retrospective predictions. Similarly, observed breast cancers in 640 women were compared to retrospective predictions of breast cancer incidence. The ratios of observed to expected number of BRCA1- , BRCA2- and BRCA(1 or 2) mutations were 1.43 (95% CI 1.05–1.90), 0.63 (95% CI 0.34–1.08), and 1.12 (95% CI 0.86–1.44), showing a significant underestimation of BRCA1 mutations. Discrimination between carriers and non-carriers as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.88). The ratio of observed to expected number of invasive breast cancers was 1.41 (0.91–2.08). The corresponding area under the ROC curve for prediction of invasive breast cancer at individual level was 0.62 (95% CI 0.52–0.73). In conclusion, the BOADICEA model can predict the total prevalence of BRCA(1 or 2) mutations and the incidence of invasive breast cancers. The mutation probability as generated by BOADICEA can be used clinically as a guideline for screening, and thus decrease the proportion of negative mutation analyses. Likewise, individual breast cancer risks can be used for selecting women whose risk of breast cancer indicates follow-up. Application of local mutation frequencies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 could improve the ability to distinguish between the two genes

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB

Increased risk of second malignancies after in situ breast carcinoma in a population-based registry

Among 1276 primary breast carcinoma in situ (BCIS) patients diagnosed in 1972–2002 in the Southern Netherlands, 11% developed a second cancer. Breast carcinoma in situ patients exhibited a two-fold increased risk of second cancer (standardised incidence ratios (SIR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7–2.5). The risk was highest for a second breast cancer (SIR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.6–4.3; AER: 66 patients per 10 000 per year) followed by skin cancer (SIR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.6; AER: 17 patients per 10 000 per year). The increased risk of second breast cancer was similar for the ipsilateral (SIR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–2.7) and contralateral (SIR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.8) breast. Risk of second cancer was independent of age at diagnosis, type of initial therapy, histologic type of BCIS and period of diagnosis. Standardised incidence ratios of second cancer after BCIS (SIR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.8–2.8) resembled that after invasive breast cancer (SIR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.1–2.4). Surveillance should be directed towards second (ipsi- and contra-lateral) breast cancer

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

Is genetic counseling a stressful event?

Purpose. The aim of this paper was to investigate whether cancer genetic counseling could be considered as a stressful event and associated with more anxiety and/or depression compared to other cancer-related events for instance attending mammography screening or receiving a cancer diagnosis. Methods. A total of 4911 individuals from three Scandinavian countries were included in the study. Data was collected from individuals who had attended either cancer genetic counseling (self-referred and physician-referred) or routine mammography screening, were recalled for a second mammograpy due to a suspicious mammogram, had received a cancer diagnosis or had received medical follow-up after a breast cancer-surgery. Data from the genetic counseling group was also compared to normative data. Participants filled in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale twice: prior to a potentially stressful event and 14 days after the event. Results. Pre-counseling cancer genetic counselees reported significant lower level of anxiety compared to the cancer-related group, but higher levels of anxiety compared to the general population. Furthermore, the level of depression observed within the genetic counseling group was lower compared to other participants. Post-event there was no significant difference in anxiety levels between the cancer genetic counselees and all other groups; however, the level of depression reported in the self-referred group was significantly lower than observed in all other groups. Notably, the level of anxiety and depression had decreased significantly from pre-to post-events within the genetic counseling group. In the cancer-related group only the level of anxiety had decreased significantly post-event. Conclusion. Individuals who attend cancer genetic counseling do not suffer more anxiety or depression compared to all other cancer-related groups. However, some counselees might need additional sessions and extended support. Thus, identifying extremely worried individuals who need more support, and allocating further resources to their care, seems to be more sufficient

Epigenetic silencing and deletion of the BRCA1 gene in sporadic breast cancer

INTRODUCTION: BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Tumour cells from germline mutation carriers have frequently lost the wild-type allele. This is predicted to result in genomic instability where cell survival depends upon dysfunctional checkpoint mechanisms. Tumorigenic potential could then be acquired through further genomic alterations. Surprisingly, somatic BRCA mutations are not found in sporadic breast tumours. BRCA1 methylation has been shown to occur in sporadic breast tumours and to be associated with reduced gene expression. We examined the frequency of BRCA1 methylation in 143 primary sporadic breast tumours along with BRCA1 copy number alterations and tumour phenotype. METHODS: Primary sporadic breast tumours were analysed for BRCA1α promoter methylation by methylation specific PCR and for allelic imbalance (AI) at BRCA1 and BRCA2 loci by microsatellite analysis and TP53 (also known as p53) mutations by constant denaturing gel electrophoresis. The BRCA1 methylated tumours were analysed for BRCA1 copy alterations by fluorescence in situ hybridisation and BRCA1 expression by immunostaining. RESULTS: BRCA1 methylation was found in 13/143 (9.1%) sporadic breast tumours. The BRCA1 methylated tumours were significantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (P = 0.0475) and displayed a trend for BRCA1 AI (P = 0.0731) as well as young-age at diagnosis (≤ 55; P = 0.0898). BRCA1 methylation was not associated with BRCA2 AI (P = 0.5420), although a significant association was found between BRCA1 AI and BRCA2 AI (P < 0.0001). Absent/markedly reduced BRCA1 expression was observed in 9/13 BRCA1 methylated tumours, most of which had BRCA1 deletion. An elevated TP53 mutation frequency was found among BRCA1 methylated tumours (38.5%) compared with non-methylated tumours (17.2%). The BRCA1 methylated tumours were mainly of tumour grade 3 (7/13) and infiltrating ductal type (12/13). Only one methylated tumour was of grade 1. CONCLUSION: BRCA1 methylation is frequent in primary sporadic breast tumours. We found an indication for BRCA1 methylation to be associated with AI at the BRCA1 locus. Almost all BRCA1 methylated tumours with absent/markedly reduced BRCA1 expression (8/9) displayed BRCA1 deletion. Thus, epigenetic silencing and deletion of the BRCA1 gene might serve as Knudson's two 'hits' in sporadic breast tumorigenesis. We observed phenotypic similarities between BRCA1 methylated and familial BRCA1 tumours, based on BRCA1 deletion, TP53 mutations, ER status, young age at diagnosis and tumour grade

Risk perception after genetic counseling in patients with increased risk of cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Counselees are more aware of genetics and seek information, reassurance, screening and genetic testing. Risk counseling is a key component of genetic counseling process helping patients to achieve a realistic view for their own personal risk and therefore adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of disease and to encourage the patient to make informed choices <abbrgrp><abbr bid="B1">1</abbr><abbr bid="B2">2</abbr></abbrgrp>.</p> <p>The aim of this study was to conceptualize risk perception and anxiety about cancer in individuals attending to genetic counseling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The questionnaire study measured risk perception and anxiety about cancer at three time points: before and one week after initial genetic counseling and one year after completed genetic investigations. Eligibility criteria were designed to include only index patients without a previous genetic consultation in the family. A total of 215 individuals were included. Data was collected during three years period.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Before genetic counseling all of the unaffected participants subjectively estimated their risk as higher than their objective risk. Participants with a similar risk as the population overestimated their risk most. All risk groups estimated the risk for children's/siblings to be lower than their own. The benefits of preventive surveillance program were well understood among unaffected participants.</p> <p>The difference in subjective risk perception before and directly after genetic counseling was statistically significantly lower in all risk groups. Difference in risk perception for children as well as for population was also statistically significant. Experienced anxiety about developing cancer in the unaffected subjects was lower after genetic counseling compared to baseline in all groups. Anxiety about cancer had clear correlation to perceived risk of cancer before and one year after genetic investigations.</p> <p>The affected participants overestimated their children's risk as well as risk for anyone in population. Difference in risk perception for children/siblings as for the general population was significant between the first and second measurement time points. Anxiety about developing cancer again among affected participants continued to be high throughout this investigation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The participant's accuracy in risk perception was poor, especially in low risk individuals before genetic counseling. There was a general trend towards more accurate estimation in all risk groups after genetic counseling. The importance of preventive programs was well understood. Cancer anxiety was prevalent and associated with risk perception, but decreased after genetic counseling.</p> <p><abbrgrp><abbr bid="B1">1</abbr></abbrgrp> National Society of Genetic Counselors (2005), Genetic Counseling as a Profession. Available at <url>http://www.nsgc.org/about/definition.cfm</url> (accessed November 25th 2007)</p> <p><abbrgrp><abbr bid="B2">2</abbr></abbrgrp> Julian-Reynier C., Welkenhuysen M-, Hagoel L., Decruyenaere M., Hopwood P. (2003) Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J of Human Genetics 11, 725736.</p