Prostate Cancer Risk by BRCA2 Genomic Regions.

A BRCA2 prostate cancer cluster region (PCCR) was recently proposed (c.7914 to 3') wherein pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with higher prostate cancer (PCa) risk than PVs elsewhere in the BRCA2 gene. Using a prospective cohort study of 447 male BRCA2 PV carriers recruited in the UK and Ireland from 1998 to 2016, we estimated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared with population incidences and assessed variation in risk by PV location. Carriers of PVs in the PCCR had a PCa SIR of 8.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.46-15.6) and were at a higher risk of PCa than carriers of other BRCA2 PVs (SIR = 3.31, 95% CI 1.97-5.57; hazard ratio = 2.34, 95% CI 1.09-5.03). PCCR PV carriers had an estimated cumulative PCa risk of 44% (95% CI 23-72%) by the age of 75 yr and 78% (95% CI 54-94%) by the age of 85 yr. Our results corroborate the existence of a PCCR in BRCA2 in a prospective cohort. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we investigated whether the risk of prostate cancer for men with a harmful mutation in the BRCA2 gene differs based on where in the gene the mutation is located. We found that men with mutations in one region of BRCA2 had a higher risk of prostate cancer than men with mutations elsewhere in the gene

Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk but a wide range of risk estimates have been reported that are based on retrospective studies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative and absolute PCa risks associated with BRCA1/2 mutations and to assess risk modification by age, family history, and mutation location. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective cohort study of male BRCA1 (n = 376) and BRCA2 carriers (n = 447) identified in clinical genetics centres in the UK and Ireland (median follow-up 5.9 and 5.3 yr, respectively). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Standardised incidence/mortality ratios (SIRs/SMRs) relative to population incidences or mortality rates, absolute risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using cohort and survival analysis methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Sixteen BRCA1 and 26 BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed with PCa during follow-up. BRCA2 carriers had an SIR of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.99-6.61) and absolute PCa risk of 27% (95% CI 17-41%) and 60% (95% CI 43-78%) by ages 75 and 85 yr, respectively. For BRCA1 carriers, the overall SIR was 2.35 (95% CI 1.43-3.88); the corresponding SIR at age <65 yr was 3.57 (95% CI 1.68-7.58). However, the BRCA1 SIR varied between 0.74 and 2.83 in sensitivity analyses to assess potential screening effects. PCa risk for BRCA2 carriers increased with family history (HR per affected relative 1.68, 95% CI 0.99-2.85). BRCA2 mutations in the region bounded by positions c.2831 and c.6401 were associated with an SIR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.07-5.64) compared to population incidences, corresponding to lower PCa risk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.96) than for mutations outside the region. BRCA2 carriers had a stronger association with Gleason score ≥7 (SIR 5.07, 95% CI 3.20-8.02) than Gleason score ≤6 PCa (SIR 3.03, 95% CI 1.24-7.44), and a higher risk of death from PCa (SMR 3.85, 95% CI 1.44-10.3). Limitations include potential screening effects for these known mutation carriers; however, the BRCA2 results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results substantiate PCa risk patterns indicated by retrospective analyses for BRCA2 carriers, including further evidence of association with aggressive PCa, and give some support for a weaker association in BRCA1 carriers. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we followed unaffected men known to carry mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to investigate whether they are at higher risk of developing prostate cancer compared to the general population. We found that carriers of BRCA2 mutations have a high risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly more aggressive prostate cancer, and that this risk varies by family history of prostate cancer and the location of the mutation within the gene

Risks of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predictive test negatives: findings from the EMBRACE study.

Purpose BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives are proven noncarriers of a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation that is carried by their relatives. The risk of developing breast cancer (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in these women is uncertain. The study aimed to estimate risks of invasive BC and EOC in a large cohort of BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives. Methods We used cohort analysis to estimate incidences, cumulative risks, and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Results A total of 1,895 unaffected women were eligible for inclusion in the BC risk analysis and 1,736 in the EOC risk analysis. There were 23 incident invasive BCs and 2 EOCs. The cumulative risk of invasive BC was 9.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-15%) by age 85 years and the corresponding risk of EOC was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-2.6%). The SIR for invasive BC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) in the overall cohort, 0.85 (95% CI 0.48-1.50) in noncarriers from BRCA1 families, and 1.03 (95% CI 0.57-1.87) in noncarriers from BRCA2 families. The SIR for EOC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.20-3.17) in the overall cohort. Conclusion Our results did not provide evidence for elevated risks of invasive BC or EOC in BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives. Genetics in Medicine advance online publication, 22 March 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2018.44

Heimler Syndrome is Caused by Hypomorphic Mutations in the Peroxisome-Biogenesis Genes PEX1 and PEX6

Heimler syndrome (HS) is a rare recessive disorder characterized by sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), amelogenesis imperfecta, nail abnormalities and occasional or late onset retinal pigmentation. We ascertained eight families with HS, and - using a whole exome sequencing approach - identified biallelic mutations in PEX1 or PEX6 in six of them. Loss of function mutations in both genes are known causes of a spectrum of autosomal recessive peroxisome biogenesis disorders (PBDs), including Zellweger syndrome. PBDs are characterized by leukodystrophy, hypotonia, SNHL, retinopathy, and skeletal, craniofacial, and liver abnormalities. We demonstrate that each HS family has at least one hypomorphic allele that results in extremely mild peroxisomal dysfunction. Although individuals with HS share some subtle clinical features found in PBDs, the overlap is minimal and the diagnosis was not suggested by routine blood and skin fibroblast analyses used to detect PBDs. In conclusion, our findings define Heimler syndrome as a mild PBD, expanding the pleiotropy of mutations in PEX1 and PEX6

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and surveillance of BAP1 tumour predisposition syndrome

BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1) is a recognised tumour suppressor gene. Germline BAP1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants are associated with predisposition to multiple tumours, including uveal melanoma, malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, renal cell carcinoma and specific non-malignant neoplasms of the skin, as part of the autosomal dominant BAP1-tumour predisposition syndrome. The overall lifetime risk for BAP1 carriers to develop at least one BAP1-associated tumour is up to 85%, although due to ascertainment bias, current estimates of risk are likely to be overestimated. As for many rare cancer predisposition syndromes, there is limited scientific evidence to support the utility of surveillance and, therefore, management recommendations for BAP1 carriers are based on expert opinion. To date, European recommendations for BAP1 carriers have not been published but are necessary due to the emerging phenotype of this recently described syndrome and increased identification of BAP1 carriers via large gene panels or tumour sequencing. To address this, the Clinical Guideline Working Group of the CanGene-CanVar project in the United Kingdom invited European collaborators to collaborate to develop guidelines to harmonize surveillance programmes within Europe. Recommendations with respect to BAP1 testing and surveillance were achieved following literature review and Delphi survey completed by a core group and an extended expert group of 34 European specialists including Geneticists, Ophthalmologists, Oncologists, Dermatologists and Pathologists. It is recognised that these largely evidence-based but pragmatic recommendations will evolve over time as further data from research collaborations informs the phenotypic spectrum and surveillance outcomes.</p

Sporadic implementation of UK familial mammographic surveillance guidelines 15 years after original publication

Abstract: The National Institute of health and Care Excellence issued guidelines on familial breast cancer screening in 2004. Such guidelines should be uniformly implemented to ensure that members of the same family with the same level of risk, but living in different areas, have the same access to screening. We assessed uptake by creating a short, six question online survey designed to assess compliance in each regional area. We used this to conduct a survey of all 22 regional genetics services. There was a 100% response to the survey allowing a complete map to be created. The devolved nations had near complete compliance with the sole exception of SW Scotland, but in England the picture was fragmented with regions representing a combined population of 26.6 million (48%) not implementing the full NICE recommendations. Fifteen years after the publication of the original guidelines, major inequity in provision for screening still occurs and a postcode lottery exists for the management of women from families with a history of breast cancer. We estimate that up to 73 preventable breast cancer deaths occur each year due to the current inequity of access. It may be time to consider alternative funding and implementation models to ensure consistent access across the country