The benefit of adding polygenic risk scores, lifestyle factors, and breast density to family history and genetic status for breast cancer risk and surveillance classification of unaffected women from germline CHEK2 c.1100delC families

To determine the changes in surveillance category by adding a polygenic risk score based on 311 breast cancer (BC)-associated variants (PRS311), questionnaire-based risk factors and breast density on personalized BC risk in unaffected women from Dutch CHEK2 c.1100delC families. In total, 117 unaffected women (58 heterozygotes and 59 non-carriers) from CHEK2 families were included. Blood-derived DNA samples were genotyped with the GSAMDv3-array to determine PRS311. Lifetime BC risk was calculated in CanRisk, which uses data from the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA). Women, were categorized into three surveillance groups. The surveillance advice was reclassified in 37.9 % of heterozygotes and 32.2 % of non-carriers after adding PRS311. Including questionnaire-based risk factors resulted in an additional change in 20.0 % of heterozygotes and 13.2 % of non-carriers; and a subanalysis showed that adding breast density on top shifted another 17.9 % of heterozygotes and 33.3 % of non-carriers. Overall, the majority of heterozygotes were reclassified to a less intensive surveillance, while non-carriers would require intensified surveillance. The addition of PRS311, questionnaire-based risk factors and breast density to family history resulted in a more personalized BC surveillance advice in CHEK2-families, which may lead to more efficient use of surveillance.</p

Sensitivity to systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer in CHEK2 1100delC mutation carriers

Purpose: The role of CHEK2 in DNA repair by homologous recombination suggests that CHEK2-associated breast cancer (BC) patients might be more sensitive to chemotherapy inducing double-strand DNA breaks, but results hereon are lacking. We compared the sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy and endocrine therapy between CHEK2 1100delC and non-CHEK2 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Methods: Sixty-two CHEK2 1100delC MBC patients were selected from three cohorts genotyped for CHEK2 1100delC (one non-BRCA1/2 cohort and two sporadic cohorts). Controls were 62 non-CHEK2 MBC patients, matched for age at and year of primary BC diagnosis, and year of metastatic disease. Objective response rate (complete and partial response) to, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after start of first-line chemotherapy and endocrine therapy were compared between CHEK2 and non-CHEK2 patients. Results: Median age at BC diagnosis was 46 and 51 years at MBC diagnosis. First-line chemotherapy consisted of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (n = 73), taxanes (n = 16), CMF(-like) chemotherapy (n = 33) and taxane/anthracycline regimens (n = 2). CHEK2 and non-CHEK2 patients had a comparable objective response rate (44 vs. 52 %). Also, PFS and OS after start of chemotherapy were comparable between both patient groups (hazard ratio 0.91; 95 % confidence interval 0.63–1.30 and 1.03; 95 % CI 0.71–1.49, respectively). Thirty-six CHEK2 and 32 non-CHEK2 patients received first-line endocrine therapy (mainly tamoxifen) for MBC. No significant differences were observed in objective response rate to, and PFS and OS after start of endocrine therapy. Conclusion: No differ

Recurrent HOXB13 mutations in the Dutch population do not associate with increased breast cancer risk

The HOXB13 p.G84E mutation has been firmly established as a prostate cancer susceptibility allele. Although HOXB13 also plays a role in breast tumor progression, the association of HOXB13 p.G84E with breast cancer risk is less evident. Therefore, we comprehensively interrogated the entire HOXB13 coding sequence for mutations in 1,250 non-BRCA1/2 familial breast cancer cases and 800 controls. We identified two predicted deleterious missense mutations, p.G84E and p.R217C, that were recurrent among breast cancer cases and further evaluated their association with breast cancer risk in a larger study. Taken together, 4,520 familial non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases and 3,127 controls were genotyped including the cases and controls of the whole gene screen. The concordance rate for the genotyping assays compared with Sanger sequencing was 100%. The prostate cancer risk allele p.G84E was identified in 18 (0.56%) of 3,187 cases and 16 (0.70%) of 2,300 controls (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.41-1.59, P = 0.54). Additionally, p.R217C was identified in 10 (0.31%) of 3,208 cases and 2 (0.087%) of 2,288 controls (OR = 3.57, 95% CI = 0.76-33.57, P = 0.14). These results imply that none of the recurrent HOXB13 mutations in the Dutch population are associated with breast cancer risk, although it may be worthwhile to evaluate p.R217C in a larger study

The development of an online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making: a usability and pilot study

An online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making was developed. A two-phase usability test was conducted among 12 couples (N = 22; 2 persons participated without their partner) at risk for hereditary cancer and 15 health care providers. Couples and health care providers expressed similar suggestions for improvements, and evaluated the modified decision aid as acceptable, easy to use, and comprehensible. The final decision aid was pilot tested (N = 16) with paired sample t tests comparing main outcomes (decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options and decision self-efficacy) before (T0), immediately (T1) and 2 weeks after (T2) use of the decision aid. Pilot testing indicated decreased decisional conflict scores, increased knowledge, and improved realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options, at T1 and T2. No effect was found for couples’ decision self-efficacy. The positive findings during usability testing were thus reflected in the pilot study. The decision aid will be further evaluated in a nationwide pretest–posttest study to facilitate implementation in the onco-genetic counselling setting. Ultimately, it is expected that the decision aid will enable end-users to make an informed decision

Reproductive decision-making in the context of hereditary cancer: the effects of an online decision aid on informed decision-making

Individuals having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners face challenging decisions regarding their wish to have children. This study aimed to determine the effects of an online decision aid to support couples in making an informed decision regarding their reproductive options. A nationwide pretest-posttest study was conducted in the Netherlands among 131 participants between November 2016 and May 2018. Couples were eligible for participation if one partner had a pathogenic variant predisposing for an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome. Participants completed a questionnaire before use (T0), and at 3 months (T3) after use of the decision aid to assess the primary outcome measure informed decision-making, and the secondary outcome measures decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision self-efficacy. T0–T3 comparisons show an overall positive effect for all outcome measures (all ps < 0.05; knowledge (ES = − 1.05), decisional conflict (ES = 0.99), participants’ decision self-efficacy (ES = −0.55), level of deliberation (ES = − 0.50), and realistic expectations (ES = − 0.44). Informed decision-making increased over time and 58.0% of the participants made an informed reproductive decision at T3. The online decision aid seems to be an appropriate tool to complement standard reproductive counseling to support our target group in making an informed reproductive decision. Use of the decision aid may lessen the negative psychological impact of decision-making on couples’ daily life and wellbeing

Parent-of-origin-specific allelic associations among 106 genomic loci for age at menarche.

Age at menarche is a marker of timing of puberty in females. It varies widely between individuals, is a heritable trait and is associated with risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and all-cause mortality. Studies of rare human disorders of puberty and animal models point to a complex hypothalamic-pituitary-hormonal regulation, but the mechanisms that determine pubertal timing and underlie its links to disease risk remain unclear. Here, using genome-wide and custom-genotyping arrays in up to 182,416 women of European descent from 57 studies, we found robust evidence (P < 5 × 10(-8)) for 123 signals at 106 genomic loci associated with age at menarche. Many loci were associated with other pubertal traits in both sexes, and there was substantial overlap with genes implicated in body mass index and various diseases, including rare disorders of puberty. Menarche signals were enriched in imprinted regions, with three loci (DLK1-WDR25, MKRN3-MAGEL2 and KCNK9) demonstrating parent-of-origin-specific associations concordant with known parental expression patterns. Pathway analyses implicated nuclear hormone receptors, particularly retinoic acid and γ-aminobutyric acid-B2 receptor signalling, among novel mechanisms that regulate pubertal timing in humans. Our findings suggest a genetic architecture involving at least hundreds of common variants in the coordinated timing of the pubertal transition

Survival after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background In healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) strongly reduces the risk of developing breast cancer (BC); however, no clear survival beneft of BRRM over BC surveillance has been reported yet. Methods In this Dutch multicenter cohort study, we used multivariable Cox models with BRRM as a time-dependent covariable to estimate the associations between BRRM and the overall and BC-specifc mortality rates, separately for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results During a mean follow-up of 10.3 years, 722 out of 1712 BRCA1 (42%) and 406 out of 1145 BRCA2 (35%) mutation carriers underwent BRRM. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, we observed 52 deaths (20 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 10 deaths (one from BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratios were 0.40 (95% CI 0.20–0.90) for overall mortality and 0.06 (95% CI 0.01–0.46) for BC-specifc mortality. BC-specifc survival at age 65 was 93% for surveillance and 99.7% for BRRM. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, we observed 29 deaths (7 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 4 deaths (no BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratio for overall mortality was 0.45 (95% CI 0.15–1.36). BC-specifc survival at age 65 was 98% for surveillance and 100% for BRRM. Conclusion BRRM was associated with lower mortality than surveillance for BRCA1 mutation carriers, but for BRCA2 mutation carriers, BRRM may lead to similar BC-specifc survival as surveillance. Our fndings support a more individualized counseling based on BRCA mutation type

Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes

BACKGROUND: Protein truncating variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with increased breast cancer risk, but risks associated with missense variants in these genes are uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data on 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls from studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium BRIDGES project. We sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1425), CHEK2 (325), and PALB2 (472). We evaluated breast cancer risks according to five in silico prediction-of-deleteriousness algorithms, functional protein domain, and frequency, using logistic regression models and also mixture models in which a subset of variants was assumed to be risk-associated. RESULTS: The most predictive in silico algorithms were Helix (BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2) and CADD (ATM). Increased risks appeared restricted to functional protein domains for ATM (FAT and PIK domains) and BRCA1 (RING and BRCT domains). For ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2, data were compatible with small subsets (approximately 7%, 2%, and 0.6%, respectively) of rare missense variants giving similar risk to those of protein truncating variants in the same gene. For CHEK2, data were more consistent with a large fraction (approximately 60%) of rare missense variants giving a lower risk (OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.47-2.08)) than CHEK2 protein truncating variants. There was little evidence for an association with risk for missense variants in PALB2. The best fitting models were well calibrated in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: These results will inform risk prediction models and the selection of candidate variants for functional assays and could contribute to the clinical reporting of gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility

A case-only study to identify genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Ovarian stimulation for IVF and risk of primary breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Background: The effect of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is rarely examined. As carriers may increasingly undergo IVF as part of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), we examined the impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Methods: The study population consisted of 1550 BRCA1 and 964 BRCA2 mutation carriers, derived from the nationwide HEBON study and the nationwide PGD registry. Questionnaires, clinical records and linkages with the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to collect data on IVF exposure, risk-reducing surgeries and cancer diagnosis, respectively. Time-dependent Cox regression analyses were conducted, stratified for birth cohort and adjusted for subfertility. Results: Of the 2514 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, 3% (n = 76) were exposed to ovarian stimulation for IVF. In total, 938 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (37.3%) were diagnosed with breast cancer. IVF exposure was not associated with risk of breast cancer (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46–1.36). Similar results were found for the subgroups of subfertile women (n = 232; HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.39–1.37) and BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.60–2.09). In addition, age at and recency of first IVF treatment were not associated with breast cancer risk. Conclusion: No evidence was found for an association between ovarian stimulation for IVF and breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers