Prevalence of the most frequent BRCA1 mutations in Polish population

The purpose of our study was to establish the frequency and distribution of the four most common BRCA1 mutations in Polish general population and in a series of breast cancer patients. Analysis of the population frequency of 5382insC (c.5266dupC), 300T >G (p.181T >G), 185delAG (c.68_69delAG) and 3819del5 (c.3700_3704del5) mutations of the BRCA1 gene were performed on a group of respectively 16,849, 13,462, 12,485 and 3923 anonymous samples collected at birth in seven Polish provinces. The patient group consisted of 1845 consecutive female breast cancer cases. The most frequent BRCA1 mutation in the general population was 5382insC found in 29 out of 16,849 samples (0.17%). 300T >G and 3819del5 mutations were found in respectively 11 of 13,462 (0.08%) and four of 3923 (0.1%) samples. The population prevalence for combined Polish founder 5382insC and 300T >G mutations was 0.25% (1/400). The frequencies of 5382insC and 300T >G carriers among consecutive breast cancer cases were, respectively, 1.9% (35/1845) and 1.2% (18/1486). Comparing these data with the population frequency, we calculated the relative risk of breast cancer for 5382insC mutation at OR = 17 and for 300T >G mutation at OR = 26. Our results, based on large population studies, show high frequencies of founder 5382insC and 300T >G BRCA1 mutations in Polish general population. Carriage of one of these mutations is connected with a very high relative risk of breast cancer

BRCA2 gene mutations in families with aggregations of breast and stomach cancers

Stomach cancer ranks second to lung cancer in the global cancer burden. It is estimated that 25% of families meeting the criteria for hereditary diffuse gastric carcinoma (HDCG) will have germline mutations in the E-cadherin gene. Evidence suggests that stomach cancer might also be a malignant manifestation of other inherited predispositions to disease. Recently, it has been reported that the incidence of stomach cancer is significantly increased in BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. We analysed by direct sequencing the BRCA2 gene in 29 breast cancer patients derived from 29 families with an aggregation of at least one female breast cancer diagnosed before the age of 50 years and one male stomach cancer diagnosed before the age of 55 years. In all but one of these families at least one additional relative was also affected by a malignant tumour. We identified three frameshift mutations and three sequence variants – potentially missense mutations, in six unrelated patients representing 20.7% (six out of 29) of the families investigated. Our results confirm that BRCA2 gene mutations are also associated with familial aggregations of not only breast but also of stomach cancer. In comparison to the number of cancers expected in the study population compared to the general population there is an over-representation of several cancers with significant confidence intervals to suggest that the associations are real and not a selection artefact

Characteristics of small breast and/or ovarian cancer families with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2

For families with a small number of cases of breast and/or ovarian cancer, limited data are available to predict the likelihood of genetic predisposition due to mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. In 104 families with three or more affected individuals (average 3.8) seeking counselling at family cancer clinics, mutation analysis was performed in the open reading frame of BRCA1 and BRCA2 by the protein truncation test and mutation-specific assays. In 31 of the 104 families tested, mutations were detected (30%). The majority of these mutations (25) occurred in BRCA1. Mutations were detected in 15 out of 25 families (60%) with both breast and ovarian cancer and in 16 out of 79 families (20%) with exclusively cases of breast cancer. Thus, an ovarian cancer case strongly predicted finding a mutation (P < 0.001). Within the group of small breast-cancer-only families, a bilateral breast cancer case or a unilateral breast cancer case diagnosed before age 40 independently predicted finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (P = 0.005 and P = 0.02, respectively). Therefore, even small breast/ovarian cancer families with at least one case of ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer, or a case of breast cancer diagnosed before age 40, should be referred for mutation screening. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Five recurrent BRCA1/2 mutations are responsible for cancer predisposition in the majority of Slovenian breast cancer families

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Both recurrent and population specific mutations have been found in different areas of the world and more specifically in ethnically defined or isolated populations. The population of Slovenia has over several centuries undergone limited mixing with surrounding populations.</p> <p>The current study was aimed at establishing the mutation spectrum of <it>BRCA1/2 </it>in the Slovenian breast/ovarian cancer families taking advantage of a complete cancer registration database. A second objective was to determine the cancer phenotype of these families.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The original population database was composed of cancer patients from the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana in Slovenia which also includes current follow-up status on these patients. The inclusion criteria for the <it>BRCA1/2 </it>screening were: (i) probands with at least two first degree relatives with breast and ovarian cancer; (ii) probands with only two first degree relatives of breast cancer where one must be diagnosed less than 50 years of age; and (iii) individual patients with breast and ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer, breast cancer diagnosed before the age of 40 and male breast cancer without any other cancer in the family.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Probands from 150 different families met the inclusion criteria for mutation analysis of which 145 consented to testing. A <it>BRCA1/2 </it>mutation was found in 56 (39%). Two novel large deletions covering consecutive exons of <it>BRCA1 </it>were found. Five highly recurrent specific mutations were identified (1806C>T, 300T>G, 300T>A, 5382insC in the <it>BRCA1 </it>gene and IVS16-2A>G in the <it>BRCA2 </it>gene). The IVS16-2A>G in the <it>BRCA2 </it>gene appears to be a unique founder mutation in the Slovenian population. A practical implication is that only 4 PCR fragments can be used in a first screen and reveal the cancer predisposing mutation in 67% of the <it>BRCA1/2 </it>positive families. We also observed an exceptionally high frequency of 4 different pathogenic missense mutations, all affecting one of the cryptic cysteine residues of the <it>BRCA1 </it>Ring Finger domain.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A high mutation detection rate and the frequent occurrence of a limited array of recurring mutations facilitate <it>BRCA1/2 </it>mutation screening in Slovenian families.</p

Patients with an unexplained microsatellite instable tumour have a low risk of familial cancer

The cancer risk is unknown for those families in which a microsatellite instable tumour is neither explained by MLH1 promoter methylation nor by a germline mutation in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene. Such information is essential for genetic counselling. Families suspected of Lynch syndrome (n=614) were analysed for microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter methylation and/or germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Characteristics of the 76 families with a germline mutation (24 MLH1, 2 PMS2, 32 MSH2, and 18 MSH6) were compared with those of 18 families with an unexplained microsatellite instable tumour. The mean age at diagnosis of the index patients in both groups was comparable at 44 years. Immunohistochemistry confirmed the loss of an MMR protein. Together this suggests germline inactivation of a known gene. The Amsterdam II criteria were fulfilled in 50/75 families (66%) that carried a germline mutation in an MMR gene and in only 2/18 families (11%) with an unexplained microsatellite instable tumour (P<0.0001). Current diagnostic strategies can detect almost all highly penetrant MMR gene mutations. Patients with an as yet unexplained microsatellite instable tumour likely carry a different type of mutation that confers a lower risk of cancer for relatives

High proportion of recurrent germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene in breast and ovarian cancer patients from the Prague area

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been shown to account for the majority of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The purpose of our study was to estimate the incidence and spectrum of pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 genes in high-risk Czech families. METHODS: A total of 96 Czech families with recurrent breast and/or ovarian cancer and 55 patients considered to be at high-risk but with no reported family history of cancer were screened for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes. The entire coding sequence of each gene was analyzed using a combination of the protein truncation test and direct DNA sequencing. RESULTS: A total of 35 mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes were identified in high-risk families (36.5%). Pathogenic mutations were found in 23.3% of breast cancer families and in 59.4% of families with the occurrence of both breast and ovarian cancer. In addition, four mutations were detected in 31 (12.9%) women with early onset breast cancer. One mutation was detected in seven (14.3%) patients affected with both a primary breast and ovarian cancer and another in three (33.3%) patients with a bilateral breast cancer. A total of 3 mutations in BRCA1 were identified among 14 (21.4%) women with a medullary breast carcinoma. Of 151 analyzed individuals, 35 (23.2%) carried a BRCA1 mutation and 9 (6.0%) a BRCA2 mutation. One novel truncating mutation was found in BRCA1 (c.1747A>T) and two in BRCA2 (c.3939delC and c.5763dupT). The 35 identified BRCA1 mutations comprised 13 different alterations. Three recurrent mutations accounted for 71.4% of unrelated individuals with detected gene alterations. The BRCA1 c.5266dupC (5382insC) was detected in 51.4% of mutation positive women. The mutations c.3700_3704del5 and c.181T>G (300T>G) contributed to 11.4% and 8.6% of pathogenic mutations, respectively. A total of eight different mutations were identified in BRCA2. The novel c.5763dupT mutation, which appeared in two unrelated families, was the only recurrent alteration of the BRCA2 gene identified in this study. CONCLUSION: Mutational analysis of BRCA1/2 genes in 151 high-risk patients characterized the spectrum of gene alterations and demonstrated the dominant role of the BRCA1 c.5266dupC allele in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

The exon 13 duplication in the BRCA1 gene is a founder mutation present in geographicaly diverse populations

Recently, a 6-kb duplication of exon 13, which creates a frameshift in the coding sequence of the BRCA1 gene, has been described in three unrelated U.S. families of European ancestry and in one Portuguese family. Here, our goal was to estimate the frequency and geographic diversity of carriers of this duplication. To do this, a collaborative screening study was set up that involved 39 institutions from 19 countries and included 3,580 unrelated individuals with a family history of the disease and 934 early-onset breast and/or ovarian cancer cases. A total of 11 additional families carrying this mutation were identified in Australia (1), Belgium (1), Canada (1), Great Britain (6), and the United States (2). Haplotyping showed that they are likely to derive from a common ancestor, possibly of northern British origin. Our results demonstrate that it is strongly advisable, for laboratories carrying out screening either in English-speaking countries or in countries with historical links with Britain, to include within their BRCA1 screening protocols the polymerase chain reaction-based assay described in this report

Focusing on patient needs and preferences may improve genetic counseling for colorectal cancer

During cancer genetic counseling, different items which counselors consider important are discussed. However, relatively little empirical evidence exists regarding the needs and preferences of counselees. In this study needs and preferences were assessed from counselees with a personal and/or family history of colorectal cancer (CRC), who were referred for genetic counseling regarding CRC. They received a slightly modified version of the QUOTE-GENE(ca) questionnaire prior to their first visit to the Hereditary Cancer Clinic. Response rate was 60 % (48/80 participants). Counselees rated the importance of 45 items assessing their needs and preferences regarding the content and process of genetic counseling. Participants rated the items regarding discussion of information about their familial CRC risk (100 %) and preventive options (98 %) as important or very important. Fewer participants rated items concerning general information on genetics as important. Sensitive communication during counseling was considered very important by a large percentage of counselees. Generally, no major differences were seen between participants in relation to individual characteristics. Our data suggest that focusing on familial CRC risk and surveillance options, in combination with sensitive communication may lead to better satisfaction with genetic counseling

A familial case of renal cell carcinoma and a t(2;3) chromosome translocation

Cytogenetic analysis was performed on peripheral blood lymphocytes of members of a family with inherited renal cell cancer. Four family members in three generations developed multiple/bilateral renal cell carcinomas of the clear cell type. In one additional case a bladder carcinoma was diagnosed. In two of the renal cell carcinoma patients a constitutional t(2;3)(q35;q21) was encountered, whereas in the two other (deceased) patients the presence of this translocation could be deduced. Also, the bladder cancer patient was found to be positive for t(2;3)(q35;q21). This is the third familial renal cell carcinoma-associated chromosomal translocation ever described. The previously reported cases also involved chromosome 3, thereby supporting the notion that this chromosome may play a crucial role in the development of renal cell carcinomas. Interestingly, the translocation breakpoints in these three families map at different locations, suggesting that multiple genes on chromosome 3 may be involved