34 research outputs found
The R337H mutation in TP53 and breast cancer in Brazil
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Germline mutations in p53 are associated with the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome which is characterized by childhood cancers, including pediatric adrenal cortical carcinomas and early onset breast cancer. The high incidence of adrenal cortical carcinomas in southern Brazil is mostly attributed to the <it>R337H </it>mutation in <it>TP53</it>. The relatively high population frequency of this mutation in southern Brazil, along with the clustering of early onset breast cancer in Li-Frameni families, suggests this mutation may also be a low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility polymorphism.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We undertook this study to evaluate the frequency of the <it>R337H </it>mutation in breast cancer patients from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. <it>R337H </it>mutation status was determined in 390 unselected breast cases and 324 controls identified from clinics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil using a PCR-based assay.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two of the breast cancer cases (0.5%) and none of the controls carried the mutation. Both cases had an early age at diagnosis (< 40 years old) and a family history of breast and other cancers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These data suggest genetic screening of young onset breast cancer patients should include testing for the <it>R337H </it>mutation.</p
The contribution of CHEK2 to the TP53-negative Li-Fraumeni phenotype
Background: CHEK2 has previously been excluded as a major cause of Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). One particular CHEK2 germline mutation, c.1100delC, has been shown to be associated with elevated breast cancer risk. The prevalence of CHEK21100delC differs between populations and has been found to be relatively high in the Netherlands. The question remains nevertheless whether CHEK2 germline mutations contribute to the Li-Fraumeni phenotype.Methods: We have screened 65 Dutch TP53-negative LFS/LFL candidate patients for CHEK2 germline mutations to determine their contribution to the LFS/LFL phenotype.Results: We identified six index patients with a CHEK2 sequence variant, four with the c.1100delC variant and two sequence variants of unknown significance, p.Phe328Ser and c.1096-?_1629+?del.Conclusion: Our data show that CHEK2 is not a major LFS susceptibility gene in the Dutch population. However, CHEK2 might be a factor contributing to individual tumour development in TP53-negative cancer-prone families
The TP53 Arg72Pro and MDM2 309G>T polymorphisms are not associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers
Background: The TP53 pathway, in which TP53 and its negative regulator MDM2 are the central elements, has an important role in carcinogenesis, particularly in BRCA1- and BRCA2-mediated carcinogenesis. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the promoter region of MDM2 (309T>G, rs2279744) and a coding SNP of TP53 (Arg72Pro, rs1042522) have been shown to be of functional significance. Methods: To investigate whether these SNPs modify breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we pooled genotype data on the TP53 Arg72Pro SNP in 7011 mutation carriers and on the MDM2 309T>G SNP in 2222 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Data were analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model within a retrospective likelihood framework. Results: No association was found between these SNPs and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (TP53: per-allele hazard ratio (HR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93–1.10, Ptrend=0.77; MDM2: HR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.84–1.09, Ptrend=0.54) or for BRCA2 mutation carriers (TP53: HR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.87–1.12, Ptrend=0.83; MDM2: HR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.80–1.21, Ptrend=0.88). We also evaluated the potential combined effects of both SNPs on breast cancer risk, however, none of their combined genotypes showed any evidence of association. Conclusion: There was no evidence that TP53 Arg72Pro or MDM2 309T>G, either singly or in combination, influence breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. O M Sinilnikova1,2, A C Antoniou3, J Simard4, S Healey5, M Léoné1, D Sinnett6,7, A B Spurdle5, J Beesley5, X Chen5, kConFab8, M H Greene9, J T Loud9, F Lejbkowicz10, G Rennert10, S Dishon10, I L Andrulis11,12, OCGN11, S M Domchek13, K L Nathanson13, S Manoukian14, P Radice15,16, I Konstantopoulou17, I Blanco18, A L Laborde19, M Durán20, A Osorio21, J Benitez21, U Hamann22, F B L Hogervorst23, T A M van Os24, H J P Gille25, HEBON23, S Peock3, M Cook3, C Luccarini26, D G Evans27, F Lalloo27, R Eeles28, G Pichert29, R Davidson30, T Cole31, J Cook32, J Paterson33, C Brewer34, EMBRACE3, D J Hughes35, I Coupier36,37, S Giraud1, F Coulet38, C Colas38, F Soubrier38, E Rouleau39, I Bièche39, R Lidereau39, L Demange40, C Nogues40, H T Lynch41, GEMO1,2,42, R K Schmutzler43, B Versmold43, C Engel44, A Meindl45, N Arnold46, C Sutter47, H Deissler48, D Schaefer49, U G Froster50, GC-HBOC43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, K Aittomäki51, H Nevanlinna52, L McGuffog3, D F Easton3, G Chenevix-Trench5 and D Stoppa-Lyonnet42 on behalf of the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/