TOPBP1 missense variant Arg309Cys and breast cancer in a German hospital-based case-control study

The DNA double strand break repair gene TOPBP1 has been suggested as a breast cancer susceptibility gene and a missense variant Arg309Cys was observed at elevated frequency in familial breast cancer cases compared to healthy controls from Finland. We found the Arg309Cys allele at a 13% carrier frequency in a hospital-based series of 1064 German breast cancer patients and at a 14% carrier frequency in 1014 population controls (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.69-1.15; p = 0.4). Arg309Cys carriers were not enriched among patients with a family history of breast cancer (OR = 0.87, 95%CI 0.53-1.43, p = 0.6) and were slightly underrepresented in patients with bilateral disease (OR = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.24-0.99; p = 0.047). In the latter group, the mean age at diagnosis was 62 years in carriers and 54 years in non-carriers (p = 0.004). We conclude that there is no evidence for the TOPBP1*Arg309Cys variant to confer an increased risk for breast cancer in the German population

Towards controlled terminology for reporting germline cancer susceptibility variants: an ENIGMA report.

The vocabulary currently used to describe genetic variants and their consequences reflects many years of studying and discovering monogenic disease with high penetrance. With the recent rapid expansion of genetic testing brought about by wide availability of high-throughput massively parallel sequencing platforms, accurate variant interpretation has become a major issue. The vocabulary used to describe single genetic variants in silico, in vitro, in vivo and as a contributor to human disease uses terms in common, but the meaning is not necessarily shared across all these contexts. In the setting of cancer genetic tests, the added dimension of using data from genetic sequencing of tumour DNA to direct treatment is an additional source of confusion to those who are not experienced in cancer genetics. The language used to describe variants identified in cancer susceptibility genetic testing typically still reflects an outdated paradigm of Mendelian inheritance with dichotomous outcomes. Cancer is a common disease with complex genetic architecture; an improved lexicon is required to better communicate among scientists, clinicians and patients, the risks and implications of genetic variants detected. This review arises from a recognition of, and discussion about, inconsistencies in vocabulary usage by members of the ENIGMA international multidisciplinary consortium focused on variant classification in breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. It sets out the vocabulary commonly used in genetic variant interpretation and reporting, and suggests a framework for a common vocabulary that may facilitate understanding and clarity in clinical reporting of germline genetic tests for cancer susceptibility

Mutation analysis of the MDM4 gene in German breast cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MDM4 is a negative regulator of p53 and cooperates with MDM2 in the cellular response to DNA damage. It is unknown, however, whether <it>MDM4 </it>gene alterations play some role in the inherited component of breast cancer susceptibility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We sequenced the whole <it>MDM4 </it>coding region and flanking untranslated regions in genomic DNA samples obtained from 40 German patients with familial breast cancer. Selected variants were subsequently screened by RFLP-based assays in an extended set of breast cancer cases and controls.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our resequencing study uncovered two <it>MDM4 </it>coding variants in 4/40 patients. Three patients carried a silent substitution at codon 74 that was linked with another rare variant in the 5'UTR. No association of this allele with breast cancer was found in a subsequent screening of 133 patients with bilateral breast cancer and 136 controls. The fourth patient was heterozygous for the missense substitution D153G which is located in a less conserved region of the MDM4 protein but may affect a predicted phosphorylation site. The D153G substitution only partially segregated with breast cancer in the family and was not identified on additional 680 chromosomes screened.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study did not reveal clearly pathogenic mutations although it uncovered two new unclassified variants at a low frequency. We conclude that there is no evidence for a major role of <it>MDM4 </it>coding variants in the inherited susceptibility towards breast cancer in German patients.</p

BRCA2 polymorphic stop codon K3326X and the risk of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers

Background: The K3326X variant in BRCA2 (BRCA2*c.9976A&gt;T; p.Lys3326*; rs11571833) has been found to be associated with small increased risks of breast cancer. However, it is not clear to what extent linkage disequilibrium with fully pathogenic mutations might account for this association. There is scant information about the effect of K3326X in other hormone-related cancers. Methods: Using weighted logistic regression, we analyzed data from the large iCOGS study including 76 637 cancer case patients and 83 796 control patients to estimate odds ratios (ORw) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for K3326X variant carriers in relation to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer risks, with weights defined as probability of not having a pathogenic BRCA2 variant. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling, we also examined the associations of K3326X with breast and ovarian cancer risks among 7183 BRCA1 variant carriers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The K3326X variant was associated with breast (ORw = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.40, P = 5.9x10- 6) and invasive ovarian cancer (ORw = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P = 3.8x10-3). These associations were stronger for serous ovarian cancer and for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer (ORw = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.70, P = 3.4x10-5 and ORw = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.76, P = 4.1x10-5, respectively). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was a statistically significant inverse association of the K3326X variant with risk of ovarian cancer (HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.84, P = .013) but no association with breast cancer. No association with prostate cancer was observed. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that the K3326X variant is associated with risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers independent of other pathogenic variants in BRCA2. Further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanism of action responsible for these associations

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

Pleiotropy-guided transcriptome imputation from normal and tumor tissues identifies candidate susceptibility genes for breast and ovarian cancer.

Familial, sequencing, and genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and genetic correlation analyses have progressively unraveled the shared or pleiotropic germline genetics of breast and ovarian cancer. In this study, we aimed to leverage this shared germline genetics to improve the power of transcriptome-wide association studies (TWASs) to identify candidate breast cancer and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. We built gene expression prediction models using the PrediXcan method in 681 breast and 295 ovarian tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas and 211 breast and 99 ovarian normal tissue samples from the Genotype-Tissue Expression project and integrated these with GWAS meta-analysis data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (122,977 cases/105,974 controls) and the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (22,406 cases/40,941 controls). The integration was achieved through application of a pleiotropy-guided conditional/conjunction false discovery rate (FDR) approach in the setting of a TWASs. This identified 14 candidate breast cancer susceptibility genes spanning 11 genomic regions and 8 candidate ovarian cancer susceptibility genes spanning 5 genomic regions at conjunction FDR 1 Mb away from known breast and/or ovarian cancer susceptibility loci. We also identified 38 candidate breast cancer susceptibility genes and 17 candidate ovarian cancer susceptibility genes at conjunction FDR < 0.05 at known breast and/or ovarian susceptibility loci. The 22 genes identified by our cross-cancer analysis represent promising candidates that further elucidate the role of the transcriptome in mediating germline breast and ovarian cancer risk

Analyses of germline variants associated with ovarian cancer survival identify functional candidates at the 1q22 and 19p12 outcome loci.

We previously identified associations with ovarian cancer outcome at five genetic loci. To identify putatively causal genetic variants and target genes, we prioritized two ovarian outcome loci (1q22 and 19p12) for further study. Bioinformatic and functional genetic analyses indicated that MEF2D and ZNF100 are targets of candidate outcome variants at 1q22 and 19p12, respectively. At 19p12, the chromatin interaction of a putative regulatory element with the ZNF100 promoter region correlated with candidate outcome variants. At 1q22, putative regulatory elements enhanced MEF2D promoter activity and haplotypes containing candidate outcome variants modulated these effects. In a public dataset, MEF2D and ZNF100 expression were both associated with ovarian cancer progression-free or overall survival time. In an extended set of 6,162 epithelial ovarian cancer patients, we found that functional candidates at the 1q22 and 19p12 loci, as well as other regional variants, were nominally associated with patient outcome; however, no associations reached our threshold for statistical significance (p<1×10-5). Larger patient numbers will be needed to convincingly identify any true associations at these loci.The OCAC Oncoarray genotyping project was funded through grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health 2 (NIH) (CA1X01HG007491-01, U19-CA148112, R01-CA149429 and R01-CA058598); Canadian Institutes of Health 3 Research (MOP-86727) and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (OCRF). Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. AUS studies (Australian Ovarian Cancer Study and the Australian Cancer Study) were funded by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia (199600 and 400281), Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, Cancer Foundation of Western Australia (Multi-State Application Numbers 191, 211 and 182). The Bavarian study (BAV) was supported by ELAN Funds of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. The Belgian study (BEL) was funded by Nationaal Kankerplan. The BVU study was funded by Vanderbilt CTSA grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (ULTR000445). The CNIO Ovarian Cancer Study (CNI) study was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI 12/01319); Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (SAF2012). The Hawaii Ovarian Cancer Study (HAW) was supported the U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01-CA58598, N01-CN-55424 and N01-PC-67001). The Hannover-Jena Ovarian Cancer Study (HJO) study was funded by intramural funding through the Rudolf-Bartling Foundation. The Hormones and Ovarian Cancer Prediction study (HOP) was supported by US National Cancer Institute: K07-CA80668; R01CA095023; P50-CA159981; R01-CA126841; US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command: DAMD17-02-1-0669; NIH/National Center for Research Resources/General Clinical Research Center grant MO1- RR000056. The Women’s Cancer Program (LAX) was supported by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (120950-SIOP-06-258-06-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. The Mayo Clinic Case-Only Ovarian Cancer Study (MAC) and the Mayo Clinic Ovarian Cancer Case-Control Study (MAY) were funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443, P30-CA15083, P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; Fraternal Order of Eagles. The MALOVA study (MAL) was funded by research grant R01- CA61107 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md; research grant 94 222 52 from the Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark; and the Mermaid I project. The North Carolina Ovarian Cancer Study (NCO) National Institutes of Health (R01-CA76016) and the Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0666). The New England-based Case-Control Study of Ovarian Cancer (NEC) was supported by NIH grants R01 CA 054419-10 and P50 CA105009, and Department of Defense CDMRP grant W81XWH-10-1-0280. The University of Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway study (NOR) was funded by Helse Vest, The Norwegian Cancer Society, The Research Council of Norway. The Oregon study (ORE) was funded by the Sherie Hildreth Ovarian Cancer Research Fund and the OHSU Foundation. The Ovarian Cancer Prognosis and Lifestyle Study (OPL) was funded by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (APP1025142) and Brisbane Women’s Club. The Danish Pelvic Mass Study (PVD) was funded by Herlev Hospitals Forskningsråd, Direktør Jacob Madsens og Hustru Olga Madsens fond, Arvid Nilssons fond, Gangsted fonden, Herlev Hospitals Forskningsråd and Danish Cancer Society. The Royal Brisbane Hospital (RBH) study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The Scottish Randomised Trial in Ovarian Cancer study (SRO) was funded by Cancer Research UK (C536/A13086, C536/A6689) and Imperial Experimental Cancer Research Centre (C1312/A15589). The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre study (UHN) was funded by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Foundation-Bridge for the Cure. The Gynaecological Oncology Biobank at Westmead (WMH) is a member of the Australasian Biospecimen Network-Oncology group, funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Enabling Grants ID 310670 & ID 628903 and the Cancer Institute NSW Grants ID 12/RIG/1-17 and 15/RIG/1-16. OVCARE Gynecologic Tissue Bank and Outcomes Unit (VAN) study was funded by BC Cancer Foundation, VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation. Stuart MacGregor acknowledges funding from an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council project grant (APP1051698). Anna deFazio was funded by the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Institute NSW through the Sydney West-Translational Cancer Research Centre. Dr. Beth Y. Karlan is supported by American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. Irene Orlow was supported by NCI CCSG award (P30-CA008748). GCT, PW and TO’M were funded by NHMRC Fellowships

Copy Number Variants Are Ovarian Cancer Risk Alleles at Known and Novel Risk Loci

BACKGROUND: Known risk alleles for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) account for approximately 40% of the heritability for EOC. Copy number variants (CNVs) have not been investigated as EOC risk alleles in a large population cohort. METHODS: Single nucleotide polymorphism array data from 13 071 EOC cases and 17 306 controls of White European ancestry were used to identify CNVs associated with EOC risk using a rare admixture maximum likelihood test for gene burden and a by-probe ratio test. We performed enrichment analysis of CNVs at known EOC risk loci and functional biofeatures in ovarian cancer-related cell types. RESULTS: We identified statistically significant risk associations with CNVs at known EOC risk genes; BRCA1 (PEOC = 1.60E-21; OREOC = 8.24), RAD51C (Phigh-grade serous ovarian cancer [HGSOC] = 5.5E-4; odds ratio [OR]HGSOC = 5.74 del), and BRCA2 (PHGSOC = 7.0E-4; ORHGSOC = 3.31 deletion). Four suggestive associations (P \u3c .001) were identified for rare CNVs. Risk-associated CNVs were enriched (P \u3c .05) at known EOC risk loci identified by genome-wide association study. Noncoding CNVs were enriched in active promoters and insulators in EOC-related cell types. CONCLUSIONS: CNVs in BRCA1 have been previously reported in smaller studies, but their observed frequency in this large population-based cohort, along with the CNVs observed at BRCA2 and RAD51C gene loci in EOC cases, suggests that these CNVs are potentially pathogenic and may contribute to the spectrum of disease-causing mutations in these genes. CNVs are likely to occur in a wider set of susceptibility regions, with potential implications for clinical genetic testing and disease prevention

Enrichment of putative PAX8 target genes at serous epithelial ovarian cancer susceptibility loci

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 18 loci associated with serous ovarian cancer (SOC) susceptibility but the biological mechanisms driving these findings remain poorly characterised. Germline cancer risk loci may be enriched for target genes of transcription factors (TFs) critical to somatic tumorigenesis. Methods: All 615 TF-target sets from the Molecular Signatures Database were evaluated using gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and three GWAS for SOC risk: discovery (2196 cases/4396 controls), replication (7035 cases/21 693 controls; independent from discovery), and combined (9627 cases/30 845 controls; including additional individuals). Results: The PAX8-target gene set was ranked 1/615 in the discovery (PGSEA&lt;0.001; FDR=0.21), 7/615 in the replication (PGSEA=0.004; FDR=0.37), and 1/615 in the combined (PGSEA&lt;0.001; FDR=0.21) studies. Adding other genes reported to interact with PAX8 in the literature to the PAX8-target set and applying an alternative to GSEA, interval enrichment, further confirmed this association (P=0.006). Fifteen of the 157 genes from this expanded PAX8 pathway were near eight loci associated with SOC risk at P&lt;10−5 (including six with P&lt;5 × 10−8). The pathway was also associated with differential gene expression after shRNA-mediated silencing of PAX8 in HeyA8 (PGSEA=0.025) and IGROV1 (PGSEA=0.004) SOC cells and several PAX8 targets near SOC risk loci demonstrated in vitro transcriptomic perturbation. Conclusions: Putative PAX8 target genes are enriched for common SOC risk variants. This finding from our agnostic evaluation is of particular interest given that PAX8 is well-established as a specific marker for the cell of origin of SOC