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

In vitro comparison of four treatments which discourage infestation by head lice

Products which discourage the transmission of head lice are appealing; however, few studies have tested this concept. This study aims to test the efficacy of four commercial products which claim to discourage infestation by head lice; MOOV Head Lice Defence Spray (MOOV), Wild Child Quit Nits Head Lice Defence Spray (Wild Child), 100% Natural Head Lice Beater (Lice Beater) or Lysout Natural Anti-Lice Spray (Lysout). An in vitro challenge test was used. Briefly, one half of a filter paper lining the base of a petri dish was treated with the test product. Lice were then introduced to the centre of the dish, which was covered and placed in the dark at 20°C for 30 min. The number of lice on the treated and untreated sides of the filter paper was then counted after 2, 4 and 8 h post-application. MOOV was significantly more effective at discouraging the transmission of lice than the water control (p < 0.01), while Wild Child and Lysout were not at all time points. Lice Beater was significantly worse than the water control after 2 h (p < 0.01), while there was no difference after 4 and 8 h. MOOV was found to perform significantly better than Wild Child (p < 0.05) and Lice Beater (p < 0.05) at all time points. It also performed significantly better than Lysout at 2 (p < 0.05) and 8 h (p < 0.05), but not 4 h. MOOV offers the best efficacy and consistency of performance of the four products tested to discourage the transmission of head lice

The androgen receptor CAG repeat polymorphism and modification of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

INTRODUCTION: The androgen receptor (AR) gene exon 1 CAG repeat polymorphism encodes a string of 9-32 glutamines. Women with germline BRCA1 mutations who carry at least one AR allele with 28 or more repeats have been reported to have an earlier age at onset of breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 604 living female Australian and British BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers from 376 families were genotyped for the AR CAG repeat polymorphism. The association between AR genotype and disease risk was assessed using Cox regression. AR genotype was analyzed as a dichotomous covariate using cut-points previously reported to be associated with increased risk among BRCA1 mutation carriers, and as a continuous variable considering smaller allele, larger allele and average allele size. RESULTS: There was no evidence that the AR CAG repeat polymorphism modified disease risk in the 376 BRCA1 or 219 BRCA2 mutation carriers screened successfully. The rate ratio associated with possession of at least one allele with 28 or more CAG repeats was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.42-1.29; P = 0.3) for BRCA1 carriers, and 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.55-2.25; P = 0.8) for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION: The AR exon 1 CAG repeat polymorphism does not appear to have an effect on breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers

Prostate cancer in male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has a more aggressive phenotype

There is a high and rising prevalence of prostate cancer (PRCA) within the male population of the United Kingdom. Although the relative risk of PRCA is higher in male BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutation carriers, the histological characteristics of this malignancy in these groups have not been clearly defined. We present the histopathological findings in the first UK series of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with PRCA. The archived histopathological tissue sections of 20 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with PRCA were collected from histopathology laboratories in England, Ireland and Scotland. The cases were matched to a control group by age, stage and serum PSA level of PRCA cases diagnosed in the general population. Following histopathological evaluation and re-grading according to current conventional criteria, Gleason scores of PRCA developed by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were identified to be significantly higher (Gleason scores 8, 9 or 10, P=0.012) than those in the control group. Since BRCA1/2 mutation carrier status is associated with more aggressive disease, it is a prognostic factor for PRCA outcome. Targeting screening to this population may detect disease at an earlier clinical stage which may therefore be beneficial

Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Purpose To determine whether adjuvant tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer (BC) is associated with reduced contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods Analysis of pooled observational cohort data, self-reported at enrollment and at follow-up from the International BRCA1, and BRCA2 Carrier Cohort Study, Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, and Breast Cancer Family Registry. Eligible women were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers diagnosed with unilateral BC since 1970 and no other invasive cancer or tamoxifen use before first BC. Hazard ratios (HRs) for CBC associated with tamoxifen use were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for year and age of diagnosis, country, and bilateral oophorectomy and censoring at contralateral mastectomy, death, or loss to follow-up. Results Of 1,583 BRCA1 and 881 BRCA2 mutation carriers, 383 (24%) and 454 (52%), respectively, took tamoxifen after first BC d

Evaluation of the XRCC1 gene as a phenotypic modifier in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Results from the consortium of investigators of modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair are good candidates to be tested as phenotypic modifiers for carriers of mutations in the high-risk susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. The base excision repair (BER) pathway could be particularly interesting given the relation of synthetic lethality that exists between one of the components of the pathway, PARP1, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we have evaluated the XRCC1 gene that participates in the BER pathway, as phenotypic modifier of BRCA1 and BRCA2. METHODS: Three common SNPs in the gene, c.-77C>T (rs3213245) p.Arg280His (rs25489) and p.Gln399Arg (rs25487) were analysed in a series of 701 BRCA1 and 576 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: An association was observed between p.Arg280His-rs25489 and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers, with rare homozygotes at increased risk relative to common homozygotes (hazard ratio: 22.3, 95% confidence interval: 14.3-34, P<0.001). This association was further tested in a second series of 4480 BRCA1 and 3016 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATION: No evidence of association was found when the larger series was analysed which lead us to conclude that none of the three SNPs are significant modifiers of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers

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/

Association of Type and Location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations With Risk of Breast and Ovarian Cancer (vol 313, pg 1347, 2015)

Heli Nevanlinna ja Kristiina Aittomäki ovat CIMBA Consortium -työryhmän jäseniä.IMPORTANCE Limited information about the relationship between specific mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) and cancer risk exists. OBJECTIVE To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19 581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11 900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk. EXPOSURES Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Breast and ovarian cancer risks. RESULTS Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317(12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682(6%) with ovarian cancer, 272(2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% Cl, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 x 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RH R = 1.34; 95% Cl, 1.01-1.78; P =.04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% Cl, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 x 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% Cl, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 x 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% Cl, 1.06-2.78; P =.03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCRI; RHR = 1.63; 95% Cl, 1.10-2.40; P =.01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% Cl, 1.69-3.16; P =.00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% Cl, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 x 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% Cl, 0.41-0.80; P =.001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.Peer reviewe