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

Phenotypic features and genetic characterization of male breast cancer families: identification of two recurrent BRCA2 mutations in north-east of Italy

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer in men is an infrequent occurrence, accounting for ~1% of all breast tumors with an incidence of about 1:100,000. The relative rarity of male breast cancer (MBC) limits our understanding of the epidemiologic, genetic and clinical features of this tumor. METHODS: From 1997 to 2003, 10 MBC patients were referred to our Institute for genetic counselling and BRCA1/2 testing. Here we report on the genetic and phenotypic characterization of 10 families with MBC from the North East of Italy. In particular, we wished to assess the occurrence of specific cancer types in relatives of MBC probands in families with and without BRCA2 predisposing mutations. Moreover, families with recurrent BRCA2 mutations were also characterized by haplotype analysis using 5 BRCA2-linked dinucleotide repeat markers and 8 intragenic BRCA2 polymorphisms. RESULTS: Two pathogenic mutations in the BRCA2 gene were observed: the 9106C>T (Q2960X) and the IVS16-2A>G (splicing) mutations, each in 2 cases. A BRCA1 mutation of uncertain significance 4590C>G (P1491A) was also observed. In families with BRCA2 mutations, female breast cancer was more frequent in the first and second-degree relatives compared to the families with wild type BRCA1/2 (31.9% vs. 8.0% p = 0.001). Reconstruction of the chromosome phasing in three families and the analysis of three isolated cases with the IVS16-2A>G BRCA2 mutation identified the same haplotype associated with MBC, supporting the possibility that this founder mutation previously detected in Slovenian families is also present in the North East of our Country. Moreover, analysis of one family with the 9106C>T BRCA2 mutation allowed the identification of common haplotypes for both microsatellite and intragenic polymorphisms segregating with the mutation. Three isolated cases with the same mutation shared the same intragenic polymorphisms and three 5' microsatellite markers, but showed a different haplotype for 3' markers, which were common to all three cases. CONCLUSION: The 9106C>T and the IVS16-2A>G mutations constitute recurrent BRCA2 mutations in MBC cases from the North-East of Italy and may be associated with a founder effect. Knowledge of these two recurrent BRCA2 mutations predisposing to MBC may facilitate the analyses aimed at the identification of mutation carriers in our geographic area

Quantification of the Frequency and Multiplicity of Infection of Respiratory- and Lymph Node–Resident Dendritic Cells During Influenza Virus Infection

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that DC differentially regulate influenza A virus (IAV)–specific CD8 T cell responses in vivo during high and low dose IAV infections. Furthermore, in vitro infection of DC with IAV at low versus high multiplicities of infection (MOI) results in altered cytokine production and a reduced ability to prime naïve CD8 T cell responses. Flow cytometric detection of IAV proteins within DC, a commonly used method for detection of cellular IAV infection, does not distinguish between the direct infection of these cells or their uptake of viral proteins from dying epithelial cells. Methods/Principal Findings: We have developed a novel, sensitive, single-cell RT-PCR–based approach to assess the infection of respiratory DC (rDC) and lymph node (LN)-resident DC (LNDC) following high and low dose IAV infections. Our results show that, while a fraction of both rDC and LNDC contain viral mRNA following IAV infection, there is little correlation between the percentage of rDC containing viral mRNA and the initial IAV inoculum dose. Instead, increasing IAV inoculums correlate with augmented rDC MOI. Conclusion/Significance: Together, our results demonstrate a novel and sensitive method for the detection of direct IAV infection at the single-cell level and suggest that the previously described ability of DC to differentially regulate IAV-specific T cell responses during high and low dose IAV infections could relate to the MOI of rDC within the LN rather than th

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

Selecting a BRCA risk assessment model for use in a familial cancer clinic

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risk models are used to calculate the likelihood of carrying a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation. We evaluated the performances of currently-used risk models among patients from a large familial program using the criteria of high sensitivity, simple data collection and entry and <it>BRCA </it>score reporting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Risk calculations were performed by applying the BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT, IBIS and BOADICEA models to 200 non-<it>BRCA </it>carriers and 100 <it>BRCA </it>carriers, consecutively tested between August 1995 and March 2006. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were determined and sensitivity and specificity were calculated at the conventional testing thresholds. In addition, subset analyses were performed for low and high risk probands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The BRCAPRO, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT and BOADICEA models all have similar AUCs of approximately 0.75 for <it>BRCA </it>status. The Manchester and IBIS models have lower AUCs (0. and 0.47 respectively). At the conventional testing thresholds, the sensitivities and specificities for a <it>BRCA </it>mutation were, respectively, as follows: BRCAPRO (0.75, 0.62), Manchester (0.58,0.71), Penn II (0.93,0.31), Myriad II (0.71,0.63), FHAT (0.70,0.63), IBIS (0.20,0.74), BOADICEA (0.70, 0.65).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Penn II model most closely met the criteria we established and this supports the use of this model for identifying individuals appropriate for genetic testing at our facility. These data are applicable to other familial clinics provided that variations in sample populations are taken into consideration.</p

Presymptomatic breast cancer in Egypt: role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumor suppressor genes mutations detection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast cancer is one of the most common diseases affecting women. Inherited susceptibility genes, <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2</it>, are considered in breast, ovarian and other common cancers etiology. <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>genes have been identified that confer a high degree of breast cancer risk.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>Our study was performed to identify germline mutations in some exons of <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>genes for the early detection of presymptomatic breast cancer in females.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was applied on Egyptian healthy females who first degree relatives to those, with or without a family history, infected with breast cancer. Sixty breast cancer patients, derived from 60 families, were selected for molecular genetic testing of <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>genes. The study also included 120 healthy first degree female relatives of the patients, either sisters and/or daughters, for early detection of presymptomatic breast cancer mutation carriers. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood lymphocytes of all the studied subjects. Universal primers were used to amplify four regions of the <it>BRCA1 </it>gene (exons 2,8,13 and 22) and one region (exon 9) of <it>BRCA2 </it>gene using specific PCR. The polymerase chain reaction was carried out. Single strand conformation polymorphism assay and heteroduplex analysis were used to screen for mutations in the studied exons. In addition, DNA sequencing of the normal and mutated exons were performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mutations in both <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>genes were detected in 86.7% of the families. Current study indicates that 60% of these families were attributable to <it>BRCA1 </it>mutations, while 26.7% of them were attributable to <it>BRCA2 </it>mutations. Results showed that four mutations were detected in the <it>BRCA1 </it>gene, while one mutation was detected in the <it>BRCA2 </it>gene. Asymptomatic relatives, 80(67%) out of total 120, were mutation carriers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p><it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>genes mutations are responsible for a significant proportion of breast cancer. <it>BRCA </it>mutations were found in individuals with and without family history.</p

Identification of BRCA1 missense substitutions that confer partial functional activity: potential moderate risk variants?

Introduction: Many of the DNA sequence variants identified in the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 remain unclassified in terms of their potential pathogenicity. Both multifactorial likelihood analysis and functional approaches have been proposed as a means to elucidate likely clinical significance of such variants, but analysis of the comparative value of these methods for classifying all sequence variants has been limited. Methods: We have compared the results from multifactorial likelihood analysis with those from several functional analyses for the four BRCA1 sequence variants A1708E, G1738R, R1699Q, and A1708V. Results: Our results show that multifactorial likelihood analysis, which incorporates sequence conservation, co-inheritance, segregation, and tumour immunohistochemical analysis, may improve classification of variants. For A1708E, previously shown to be functionally compromised, analysis of oestrogen receptor, cytokeratin 5/6, and cytokeratin 14 tumour expression data significantly strengthened the prediction of pathogenicity, giving a posterior probability of pathogenicity of 99%. For G1738R, shown to be functionally defective in this study, immunohistochemistry analysis confirmed previous findings of inconsistent 'BRCA1-like' phenotypes for the two tumours studied, and the posterior probability for this variant was 96%. The posterior probabilities of R1699Q and A1708V were 54% and 69%, respectively, only moderately suggestive of increased risk. Interestingly, results from functional analyses suggest that both of these variants have only partial functional activity. R1699Q was defective in foci formation in response to DNA damage and displayed intermediate transcriptional transactivation activity but showed no evidence for centrosome amplification. In contrast, A1708V displayed an intermediate transcriptional transactivation activity and a normal foci formation response in response to DNA damage but induced centrosome amplification. Conclusion: These data highlight the need for a range of functional studies to be performed in order to identify variants with partially compromised function. The results also raise the possibility that A1708V and R1699Q may be associated with a low or moderate risk of cancer. While data pooling strategies may provide more information for multifactorial analysis to improve the interpretation of the clinical significance of these variants, it is likely that the development of current multifactorial likelihood approaches and the consideration of alternative statistical approaches will be needed to determine whether these individually rare variants do confer a low or moderate risk of breast cancer

A combined analysis of outcome following breast cancer: differences in survival based on BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and administration of adjuvant treatment

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in women with breast cancer remains unclear. A combined analysis was performed to address this uncertainty. METHODS: Two retrospective cohorts of Ashkenazi Jewish women undergoing breast-conserving treatment for invasive cancer between 1980 and 1995 (n = 584) were established. Archived tissue blocks were used as the source of DNA for Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutation analysis. Paraffin-embedded tissue and follow-up information was available for 505 women. RESULTS: Genotyping was successful in 496 women, of whom 56 (11.3%) were found to carry a BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutation. After a median follow-up period of 116 months, breast cancer specific survival was worse in women with BRCA1 mutations than in those without (62% at 10 years versus 86%; P < 0.0001), but not in women with the BRCA2 mutation (84% versus 86% at 10 years; P = 0.76). Germline BRCA1 mutations were an independent predictor of breast cancer mortality in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.2–4.8; P = 0.01). BRCA1 status predicted breast cancer mortality only among women who did not receive chemotherapy (hazard ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval 2.0–11.7; P = 0.001). The risk for metachronous ipsilateral cancer was not greater in women with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations than in those without mutations (P = 0.68). CONCLUSION: BRCA1 mutations, but not BRCA2 mutations, are associated with reduced survival in Ashkenazi women undergoing breast-conserving treatment for invasive breast cancer, but the poor prognosis associated with germline BRCA1 mutations is mitigated by adjuvant chemotherapy. The risk for metachronous ipsilateral disease does not appear to be increased for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, at least up to 10 years of follow up