The highly prevalent BRCA2 mutation c.2808_2811del (3036delACAA) is located in a mutational hotspot and has multiple origins

BRCA2-c.2808_2811del (3036delACAA) is one of the most reported germ line mutations in non-Ashkenazi breast cancer patients. We investigated its genetic origin in 51 Spanish carrier families that were genotyped with 11 13q polymorphic markers. Three independent associated haplotypes were clearly distinguished accounting for 23 [west Castilla y León (WCL)], 20 [east Castilla y León (ECL)] and 6 (South of Spain) families. Mutation age was estimated with the Disequilibrium Mapping using Likelihood Estimation software in a range of 45–68 and 45–71 generations for WCL and ECL haplotypes, respectively. The most prevalent variants, c.2808_2811del and c.2803G > A, were located in a double-hairpin loop structure (c.2794–c.2825) predicted by Quikfold that was proposed as a mutational hotspot. To check this hypothesis, random mutagenesis was performed over a 923 bp fragment of BRCA2, and 86 DNA variants were characterized. Interestingly, three mutations reported in the mutation databases (c.2680G > A, c.2944del and c.2957dup) were replicated and 20 affected the same position with different nucleotide changes. Moreover, five variants were placed in the same hairpin loop of c.2808_2811del, and one affected the same position (c.2808A > G). In conclusion, our results support that at least three different mutational events occurred to generate c.2808_2811del. Other highly prevalent DNA variants, such as BRCA1-c.68_69delAG, BRCA2- c.5946delT and c.8537delAG, are concentrated in hairpin loops, suggesting that these structures may represent mutational hotspots

About 1% of the breast and ovarian Spanish families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 are carriers of RAD51D pathogenic variants

RAD51D mutations have been recently identified in breast (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) families. Although an etiological role in OC appears to be present, the association of RAD51D mutations and BC risk is more unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of germline RAD51D mutations in Spanish BC/OC families negative for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. We analyzed 842 index patients: 491 from BC/OC families, 171 BC families, 51 OC families and 129 patients without family history but with early-onset BC or OC or metachronous BC and OC. Mutation detection was performed with high-resolution melting, denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography or Sanger sequencing. Three mutations were found in four families with BC and OC cases (0.82%). Two were novel: c.1A>T (p.Met1?) and c.667+2_667+23del, leading to the exon 7 skipping and one previously described: c.674C>T (p.Arg232*). All were present in BC/OC families with only one OC. The c.667+2_667+23del cosegregated in the family with one early-onset BC and two bilateral BC cases. We also identified the c.629C>T (p.Ala210Val) variant, which was predicted in silico to be potentially pathogenic. About 1% of the BC and OC Spanish families negative for BRCA1/BRCA2 are carriers of RAD51D mutations. The presence of several BC mutation carriers, albeit in the context of familial OC, suggests an increased risk for BC, which should be taken into account in the follow-up and early detection measures. RAD51D testing should be considered in clinical setting for families with BC and OC, irrespective of the number of OC cases in the family

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

Haplotype analysis of the internationally distributed BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG founder mutation reveals a common ancestral origin in Iberia

BACKGROUND: The BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG founder mutation has been reported in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families from multiple Hispanic groups. We aimed to evaluate BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG haplotype diversity in cases of European, African, and Latin American ancestry. METHODS: BC mutation carrier cases from Colombia (n = 32), Spain (n = 13), Portugal (n = 2), Chile (n = 10), Africa (n = 1), and Brazil (n = 2) were genotyped with the genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays to evaluate haplotype diversity around BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG. Additional Portuguese (n = 13) and Brazilian (n = 18) BC mutation carriers were genotyped for 15 informative SNPs surrounding BRCA1. Data were phased using SHAPEIT2, and identical by descent regions were determined using BEAGLE and GERMLINE. DMLE+ was used to date the mutation in Colombia and Iberia. RESULTS: The haplotype reconstruction revealed a shared 264.4-kb region among carriers from all six countries. The estimated mutation age was ~ 100 generations in Iberia and that it was introduced to South America early during the European colonization period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that this mutation originated in Iberia and later introduced to Colombia and South America at the time of Spanish colonization during the early 1500s. We also found that the Colombian mutation carriers had higher European ancestry, at the BRCA1 gene harboring chromosome 17, than controls, which further supported the European origin of the mutation. Understanding founder mutations in diverse populations has implications in implementing cost-effective, ancestry-informed screening

Optimal selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing using a combination of ' easy to apply ' probability models

To establish an efficient, reliable and easy to apply risk assessment tool to select families with breast and/or ovarian cancer patients for BRCA mutation testing, using available probability models. In a retrospective study of 263 families with breast and/or ovarian cancer patients, the utility of the Frank (Myriad), Gilpin (family history assessment tool) and Evans (Manchester) model was analysed, to select 49 BRCA mutation-positive families. For various cutoff levels and combinations, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared. The best combinations were subsequently validated in additional sets of families. Comparable sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the Gilpin and Evans models. They appeared to be complementary to the Frank model. To obtain an optimal sensitivity, five ‘additional criteria' were introduced that are specific for the selection of small or uninformative families. The optimal selection is made by the combination ‘Frank ⩾16% or Evans2 ⩾12 or one of five additional criteria'. The efficiency of the selection of families for mutation testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be optimised by using a combination of available easy to apply risk assessment models

The occurrence of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence alterations in Slovenian population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation spectrum and mutation detection rates according to different family histories were investigated in 521 subjects from 322 unrelated Slovenian cancer families with breast and/or ovarian cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>genes were screened using DGGE, PTT, HRM, MLPA and direct sequencing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighteen different mutations were found in <it>BRCA1 </it>and 13 in <it>BRCA2 </it>gene. Mutations in one or other gene were found in 96 unrelated families. The mutation detection rates were the highest in the families with at least one breast and at least one ovarian cancer - 42% for <it>BRCA1 </it>and 8% for <it>BRCA2</it>. The mutation detection rate observed in the families with at least two breast cancers with disease onset before the age of 50 years and no ovarian cancer was 23% for <it>BRCA1 </it>and 13% for <it>BRCA2</it>. The mutation detection rate in the families with at least two breast cancers and only one with the disease onset before the age of 50 years was 11% for <it>BRCA1 </it>and 8% for <it>BRCA2</it>. In the families with at least two breast cancers, all of them with disease onset over the age of 50 years, the detection rate was 5% for <it>BRCA2 </it>and 0% for <it>BRCA1</it>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Among the mutations detected in Slovenian population, 5 mutations in <it>BRCA1 </it>and 4 mutations in <it>BRCA2 </it>have not been described in other populations until now. The most frequent mutations in our population were c.181T > G, c.1687C > T, c.5266dupC and c.844_850dupTCATTAC in <it>BRCA1 </it>gene and c.7806-2A > G, c.5291C > G and c.3978insTGCT in <it>BRCA2 </it>gene (detected in 69% of <it>BRCA1 </it>and <it>BRCA2 </it>positive families).</p

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