19 research outputs found

    Genome-wide linkage scan in Dutch hereditary non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families identifies 9q21-22 as a putative breast cancer susceptibility locus

    No full text
    Breast cancer accounts for over 20% of all female cancers. A positive family history remains one of the most important risk factors for the disease, with first-degree relatives of patients having a twofold elevated risk. Known breast cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain only 20-25% of this risk, suggesting the existence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. Here, we report the results of a genome-wide linkage scan in 55 high-risk Dutch breast cancer families with no mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Twenty-two of these families were also part of a previous linkage study by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. In addition, we performed CGH analyses in 61 tumors of these families and 31 sporadic tumors. Three regions were identified with parametric HLOD scores >1, and three with nonparametric LOD scores >1.5. Upon further marker genotyping for the candidate loci, and the addition of another 30 families to the analysis, only the locus on chromosome 9 (9q21-22, marker D9S167) remained significant, with a nonparametric multipoint LOD score of 3.96 (parametric HLOD 0.56, alpha = 0.18). With CGH analyses we observed preferential copy number loss at BAC RP11-276H19, containing D9S167 in familial tumors as compared to sporadic tumors (P <0.001). Five candidate genes were selected from the region around D9S167 and their coding regions subjected to direct sequence analysis in 16 probands. No clear pathogenic mutations were found in any of these gene

    Exome sequencing of germline DNA from non-BRCA1/2 familial breast cancer cases selected on the basis of aCGH tumor profiling

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 118406.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)The bulk of familial breast cancer risk ( approximately 70%) cannot be explained by mutations in the known predisposition genes, primarily BRCA1 and BRCA2. Underlying genetic heterogeneity in these cases is the probable explanation for the failure of all attempts to identify further high-risk alleles. While exome sequencing of non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases is a promising strategy to detect new high-risk genes, rational approaches to the rigorous pre-selection of cases are needed to reduce heterogeneity. We selected six families in which the tumours of multiple cases showed a specific genomic profile on array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Linkage analysis in these families revealed a region on chromosome 4 with a LOD score of 2.49 under homogeneity. We then analysed the germline DNA of two patients from each family using exome sequencing. Initially focusing on the linkage region, no potentially pathogenic variants could be identified in more than one family. Variants outside the linkage region were then analysed, and we detected multiple possibly pathogenic variants in genes that encode DNA integrity maintenance proteins. However, further analysis led to the rejection of all variants due to poor co-segregation or a relatively high allele frequency in a control population. We concluded that using CGH results to focus on a sub-set of families for sequencing analysis did not enable us to identify a common genetic change responsible for the aggregation of breast cancer in these families. Our data also support the emerging view that non-BRCA1/2 hereditary breast cancer families have a very heterogeneous genetic basis

    Effect of HIPEC according to HRD/BRCAwt genomic profile in stage III ovarian cancer:Results from the phase III OVHIPEC trial

    Get PDF
    The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cisplatin to interval cytoreductive surgery improves recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Homologous recombination deficient (HRD) ovarian tumors are usually more platinum sensitive. Since hyperthermia impairs BRCA1/2 protein function, we hypothesized that HRD tumors respond best to treatment with HIPEC. We analyzed the effect of HIPEC in patients in the OVHIPEC trial, stratified by HRD status and BRCAm status. Clinical data and tissue samples were collected from patients included in the randomized, phase III OVHIPEC-1 trial. DNA copy number variation (CNV) profiles, HRD-related pathogenic mutations and BRCA1 promotor hypermethylation were determined. CNV-profiles were categorized as HRD or non-HRD, based on a previously validated algorithm-based BRCA1-like classifier. Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CI) for the effect of RFS and OS of HIPEC in the BRCAm, the HRD/BRCAwt and the non-HRD group were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Tumor DNA was available from 200/245 (82%) patients. Seventeen (9%) tumors carried a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 and 14 (7%) in BRCA2. Ninety-one (46%) tumors classified as BRCA1-like. The effect of HIPEC on RFS and OS was absent in BRCAm tumors (HR 1.25; 99%CI 0.48-3.29), and most present in HRD/BRCAwt (HR 0.44; 99%CI 0.21-0.91), and non-HRD/BRCAwt tumors (HR 0.82; 99%CI 0.48-1.42), interaction P value: 0.024. Patients with HRD tumors without pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation appear to benefit most from treatment with HIPEC, while benefit in patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations and patients without HRD seems less evident
    corecore