A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes

In computing the probability that a woman is a BRCA1 or BRCA2 carrier for genetic counselling purposes, it is important to allow for the fact that other breast cancer susceptibility genes may exist. We used data from both a population based series of breast cancer cases and high risk families in the UK, with information on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, to investigate the genetic models that can best explain familial breast cancer outside BRCA1 and BRCA2 families. We also evaluated the evidence for risk modifiers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated the simultaneous effects of BRCA1, BRCA2, a third hypothetical gene ‘BRCA3’, and a polygenic effect using segregation analysis. The hypergeometric polygenic model was used to approximate polygenic inheritance and the effect of risk modifiers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 could not explain all the observed familial clustering. The best fitting model for the residual familial breast cancer was the polygenic, although a model with a single recessive allele produced a similar fit. There was also significant evidence for a modifying effect of other genes on the risks of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Under this model, the frequency of BRCA1 was estimated to be 0.051% (95% CI: 0.021–0.125%) and of BRCA2 0.068% (95% CI: 0.033–0.141%). The breast cancer risk by age 70 years, based on the average incidence over all modifiers was estimated to be 35.3% for BRCA1 and 50.3% for BRCA2. The corresponding ovarian cancer risks were 25.9% for BRCA1 and 9.1% for BRCA2. The findings suggest that several common, low penetrance genes with multiplicative effects on risk may account for the residual non-BRCA1/2 familial aggregation of breast cancer. The modifying effect may explain the previously reported differences between population based estimates for BRCA1/2 penetrance and estimates based on high-risk families

BRCA1 mutations and other sequence variants in a population-based sample of Australian women with breast cancer

The frequency, in women with breast cancer, of mutations and other variants in the susceptibility gene, BRCA1, was investigated using a population-based case–control-family study. Cases were women living in Melbourne or Sydney, Australia, with histologically confirmed, first primary, invasive breast cancer, diagnosed before the age of 40 years, recorded on the state Cancer Registries. Controls were women without breast cancer, frequency-matched for age, randomly selected from electoral rolls. Full manual sequencing of the coding region of BRCA1 was conducted in a randomly stratified sample of 91 cases; 47 with, and 44 without, a family history of breast cancer in a first- or second-degree relative. All detected variants were tested in a random sample of 67 controls. Three cases with a (protein-truncating) mutation were detected. Only one case had a family history; her mother had breast cancer, but did not carry the mutation. The proportion of Australian women with breast cancer before age 40 who carry a germline mutation in BRCA1 was estimated to be 3.8% (95% Cl 0.3–12.6%). Seven rare variants were also detected, but for none was there evidence of a strong effect on breast cancer susceptibility. Therefore, on a population basis, rare variants are likely to contribute little to breast cancer incidence. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

The pathology of familial breast cancer: Clinical and genetic counselling implications of breast cancer pathology

Approximately 5% of all breast cancers are due to one of the high-risk breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, or possibly to a third or fourth moderate- to high-risk gene(s). A further proportion of cases arise in the presence of a less striking family history, with later average age at onset and lower penetrance: familial breast cancer. Bilaterality is a recognized feature of hereditary breast cancer. Cancers often present at an early age, with the contralateral risk high within 10 years. Proof that bilateral malignancies are separate primaries can be difficult histologically, however, especially within 3 years. The recent finding of specific pathological features related to BRCA1 and, to a lesser extent, BRCA2 mutations means that, in addition to bilaterality and family history, a pathological element can be entered into the risk calculation for the presence of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. This will facilitate the targeting of mutation testing to families in which a positive result is most likely, and may subsequently influence the clinical management of these families

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

Evidence against PALB2 involvement in Icelandic breast cancer susceptibility

Several mutations in the PALB2 gene (partner and localizer of BRCA2) have been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, including a founder mutation, 1592delT, reported in Finnish breast cancer families. Although most often the risk is moderate, it doesn't exclude families with high-risk mutations to exist and such observations have been reported. To see if high-risk PALB2-mutations may be present in the geographically confined population of Iceland, linkage analysis was done on 111 individuals, thereof 61 breast cancer cases, from 9 high-risk non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer families, targeting the PALB2 region. Also, screening for the 1592delT founder mutation in the 9 high-risk families and in 638 unselected breast cancer cases was performed. The results indicate no linkage in any of the high-risk families and screening for the 1592delT mutation was negative in all samples. PALB2 appears not to be a significant factor in high-risk breast cancer families in Iceland and the 1592delT mutation is not seen to be associated with breast cancer in Iceland

Efficiency of BRCAPRO and Myriad II mutation probability thresholds versus cancer history criteria alone for BRCA1/2 mutation detection

Considerable differences exist amongst countries in the mutation probability methods and thresholds used to select patients for BRCA1/2 genetic screening. In order to assess the added value of mutation probability methods, we have retrospectively calculated the BRCAPRO and Myriad II probabilities in 306 probands who had previously been selected for DNA-analysis according to criteria based on familial history of cancer. DNA-analysis identified 52 mutations (16.9%) and 11 unclassified variants (UVs, 3.6%). Compared to cancer history, a threshold ≥10% with BRCAPRO or with Myriad II excluded about 40% of the patients from analysis, including four with a mutation and probabilities <10% with both programs. All four probands had a BRCA2 mutation. BRCAPRO and Myriad II showed similar specificity at 10% threshold, overall BRCAPRO was more sensitive than Myriad II for the detection of mutations. Only two of the probands with an UV had probabilities >20% with BRCAPRO and Myriad II. In summary, BRCAPRO and Myriad II are more efficient than cancer history alone to exclude patients without a mutation. BRCAPRO performs better for the detection of BRCA1 mutations than of BRCA2 mutations. The Myriad II scores provided no additional information than the BRCAPRO scores alone for the detection of patients with a mutation. The use of thresholds excluded from analysis the majority of patients carrying an UV